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.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
This is very interesting. They finally charged someone with sedition despite the word that no one has been yet. Well there you go! It does say it's hard to prove legally though.
I was wondering if they had anything connecting them to Trump. Until I read the part, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. "... Also it seems as reported that plans were being made weeks before Jan.6 riot.
I can see Trump's lawyers grinning with joy that this oath keeper said Trump wasn't doing anything, just complaining"! And that it was planned well in advance to Trump's Jan. 6 speech. This has become quite interesting indeed. I wonder what way it's going to go for Trump and his involvement? Or does this mean he may now have been as involved as much as they thought? Time will tell.
It's going to be interesting to see if this obvious attempt to undo an election is going to be punished.
I wish people who come forward with this information would do it more openly , not on the condition of 'anonymitty'. This makes them less believable in many people's eyes. I find the same.
"The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a politically sensitive matter. " (Frome the article from Washington Post).
If the accusations are true, are they illegal and enough to hold Trump criminally responsible for insurrection? Are the accusations even illegal? I feel this information, even so reprehensible, would be hard to prove especially when people will not go on the record and stay anonymous. I'm afraid this information will not prove insurrection by former President Mr Trump. Especially with the Oath Keepers on recording complaining Trump " is not doing anything' . (Paraphrased).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
If the accusations are true, are they illegal and enough to hold Trump criminally responsible for insurrection? Are the accusations even illegal? I feel this information, even so reprehensible, would be hard to prove especially when people will not go on the record and stay anonymous. I'm afraid this information will not prove insurrection by former President Mr Trump. Especially with the Oath Keepers on recording complaining Trump " is not doing anything' . (Paraphrased).
Are you asking whether or not it's against our laws to storm violently into the Capitol building, during a joint session of congress, for the purpose of stopping Congress from certifying electing results? Or are you asking if it would be against the law for one to incite a mob to do that on their behalf?
If the accusations are true, are they illegal and enough to hold Trump criminally responsible for insurrection? Are the accusations even illegal? I feel this information, even so reprehensible, would be hard to prove especially when people will not go on the record and stay anonymous. I'm afraid this information will not prove insurrection by former President Mr Trump. Especially with the Oath Keepers on recording complaining Trump " is not doing anything' . (Paraphrased).
Who has claimed that those criminal sedition charges proves anything about Trump’s involvment with that specific alleged conspiracy? I think you’re a bit confused about the goals of the committee.
Are you asking whether or not it's against our laws to storm violently into the Capitol building, during a joint session of congress, for the purpose of stopping Congress from certifying electing results? Or are you asking if it would be against the law for one to incite a mob to do that on their behalf?
Of course I'm not asking that. I'm not sure you would find many people who would think what you described above was nothing but illegal and against the law. That's like asking someone if they knew murder was against the law. Strange you would ask me that.
Perhaps my post and they way I write it caused you to interpret it that way? If so,I have to apologize! I did not intend my message to sound like I was confused. I was mostly questioning the people that came forward with information and remaining anonymous.
However, with regards to the direct accusations about Mr. Trump, would/are they illegal and is that specifically a method of instruction? ? Not the inserection itself of course but his communication with the officials mentioned in your sources?
Who has claimed that those criminal sedition charges proves anything about Trump’s involvment with that specific alleged conspiracy? I think you’re a bit confused about the goals of the committee.
Oh. No one claimed that,not that I know of.I think you have confused my comment. I was referring to the comments from those that were recently charged with sedition. In relation to Trumps involvement. The Oath keeper said about Mr Trump, "Trump is not doing anything"'....... (Paraphrased).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
Of course I'm not asking that. I'm not sure you would find many people who would think what you described above was nothing but illegal and against the law. That's like asking someone if they knew murder was against the law. Strange you would ask me that.
Perhaps my post and they way I write it caused you to interpret it that way? If so,I have to apologize! I did not intend my message to sound like I was confused. I was mostly questioning the people that came forward with information and remaining anonymous.
However, with regards to the direct accusations about Mr. Trump, would/are they illegal and is that specifically a method of instruction? ? Not the inserection itself of course but his communication with the officials mentioned in your sources?
What are the direct accusations against Mr Trump that you are referencing? The House investigation into those communications that I think you are referencing is currently being obstructed by Mr Trump and his loyalists. Do you read much about the issue?
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
Oh. No one claimed that,not that I know of.I think you have confused my comment. I was referring to the comments from those that were recently charged with sedition. In relation to Trumps involvement. The Oath keeper said about Mr Trump, "Trump is not doing anything"'....... (Paraphrased).
Why do you believe that it's important that the Oath Keeper said that?
What are the direct accusations against Mr Trump that you are referencing? The House investigation into those communications that I think you are referencing is currently being obstructed by Mr Trump and his loyalists. Do you read much about the issue?
Why do you believe that it's important that the Oath Keeper said that?
I've read quite alott . Nothing with the Oath Keepers until recently or anyone being charged with sedition.. It's important because the people who are being charged at the moment(Oath keeper) said that "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. "
I think Mr. Trumps lawyers would find that very useful. The only people/person charged with sedition thus far , openly and candidly said Mr. Trump had 'no intent' and was 'just complaining'. Doesn't support the accusations that Trump planned and tried to execute an insurrection.
(I'm not saying I personally think that this exonerates Trump, just pointing out what some might claim about Trumps involvement that day).
If the accusations are true, are they illegal and enough to hold Trump criminally responsible for insurrection? Are the accusations even illegal? I feel this information, even so reprehensible, would be hard to prove especially when people will not go on the record and stay anonymous. I'm afraid this information will not prove insurrection by former President Mr Trump. Especially with the Oath Keepers on recording complaining Trump " is not doing anything' . (Paraphrased).
I share your skepticism that any charges would make any difference. This whole thing could be left at the feet of SCOTUS and I don't believe that the majority would ever support even hearing the case, and if they did, they wouldn't interfere with the Trumpist Republicans (the majority).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
50 minutes ago, LTC Advocate said:
I've read quite alott . Nothing with the Oath Keepers until recently or anyone being charged with sedition.. It's important because the people who are being charged at the moment(Oath keeper) said that "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. "
I think Mr. Trumps lawyers would find that very useful. The only people/person charged with sedition thus far , openly and candidly said Mr. Trump had 'no intent' and was 'just complaining'. Doesn't support the accusations that Trump planned and tried to execute an insurrection.
(I'm not saying I personally think that this exonerates Trump, just pointing out what some might claim about Trumps involvement that day).
What people say about Trump may be quite a bit different from what the evidence says about Trump.
I've read quite alott . Nothing with the Oath Keepers until recently or anyone being charged with sedition.. It's important because the people who are being charged at the moment(Oath keeper) said that "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. "
I think Mr. Trumps lawyers would find that very useful. The only people/person charged with sedition thus far , openly and candidly said Mr. Trump had 'no intent' and was 'just complaining'. Doesn't support the accusations that Trump planned and tried to execute an insurrection.
(I'm not saying I personally think that this exonerates Trump, just pointing out what some might claim about Trumps involvement that day).
You're suggesting that instead of forming our own opinions and conclusions about Trump's false claims that we instead adopt the opinion and views of someone charged with seditious acts against the US?
"Just complaining" about the election would describe complaining about how more people voted for the other candidate, or that your staff didn't present your case for re-election well enough, etc. Trump went way, way beyond "just complaining" by falsely claiming the election was "stolen" from him. That's a whole different issue.
toomuchbaloney
16,033 Posts
Do you know what Trump was doing in the weeks leading up to January 6? We know that he was marketing the rally for that day. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html
Was Trump looking for ways to retain lost power as he lied about losing the election?
Trump entertained plan to install an attorney general who would help him pursue baseless election fraud claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-justice-department-overturn-election/2021/01/22/b7f0b9fa-5d1c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html
It's going to be interesting to see if this obvious attempt to undo an election is going to be punished.