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.
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.
No. I'm not saying how anyone should come to a conclusion. I usually trust people will form their own. I am simply discussing information in a link to the Washington Post article presented by another member. However, there is a point to be made that if they have enough evidence to charge these people, with sedition , the same people made comments to what Trump said and how they didn't think he was going to do anything. It could be interpreted that Trump did not incite the riot to some people. Or at the least he did not incite these people, the only ones charged. The problem being up to now,no one else has been charged with insurrection/sedition/ related charges.
Again,I'm not saying this is what I believe. However I think it will be much harder now to actually hold Trump accountable considering the only people to date who have been charged with sedition, out of their own mouths and candidly said ,he was doing nothing. (Mr. Trump)
Unfortunately saying the election was stolen is not a crime as per the 1st amendment. (Again,I'm not trying to defend Mr. Trump.) I'm just pointing out how others might use this new information.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
No. I'm not saying how anyone should come to a conclusion. I usually trust people will form their own. I am simply discussing information in a link to the Washington Post article presented by another member. However, there is a point to be made that if they have enough evidence to charge these people, with sedition , the same people made comments to what Trump said and how they didn't think he was going to do anything. It could be interpreted that Trump did not incite the riot to some people. Or at the least he did not incite these people, the only ones charged. The problem being up to now,no one else has been charged with insurrection/sedition/ related charges.
Again,I'm not saying this is what I believe. However I think it will be much harder now to actually hold Trump accountable considering the only people to date who have been charged with sedition, out of their own mouths and candidly said ,he was doing nothing. (Mr. Trump)
Unfortunately saying the election was stolen is not a crime as per the 1st amendment. (Again,I'm not trying to defend Mr. Trump.) I'm just pointing out how others might use this new information.
I hope I explained it better this time!
It sounds like you believe that all Trump did was give a speech on 010621 and lie about the election results. If all Trump did was simply repeat a lie about the election then he's got nothing to worry about, right? For some reason, lots of his family and political friends thought that he (Trump) was the reason that the mob was at the capitol and they believed that Trump was the fellow with sway over the actions of the mob.
It sounds like you believe that all Trump did was give a speech on 010621 and lie about the election results. If all Trump did was simply repeat a lie about the election then he's got nothing to worry about, right? For some reason, lots of his family and political friends thought that he (Trump) was the reason that the mob was at the capitol and they believed that Trump was the fellow with sway over the actions of the mob.
No. I did not say that I thought all Mr.Trump did was give a speech. Again,I apologize if I am not presenting my message clearly.
I believe that you are referencing the text messags from his family and Fox News person Hannity? I would agree with your interpretation that they were telling him to do more during the riot,after it started. However, how someone interprets a conversation that was not intended for a vast amount of people,most likely will not be sufficient to hold Trump accountable.
I know Mr. Trump is a very divisive person for some people. Emotions are highly charged when the subject of him comes up. If animosity, hatred were enough to hold him accountable for the actions of some people that day,he would already be doing a long prison sentence or worse! Again, strong emotions will not get him convicted of a crime. Unfortunately in one sense but probably good in another? See? So divisive.
No. I'm not saying how anyone should come to a conclusion. I usually trust people will form their own. I am simply discussing information in a link to the Washington Post article presented by another member. However, there is a point to be made that if they have enough evidence to charge these people, with sedition , the same people made comments to what Trump said and how they didn't think he was going to do anything. It could be interpreted that Trump did not incite the riot to some people. Or at the least he did not incite these people, the only ones charged. The problem being up to now,no one else has been charged with insurrection/sedition/ related charges.
Again,I'm not saying this is what I believe. However I think it will be much harder now to actually hold Trump accountable considering the only people to date who have been charged with sedition, out of their own mouths and candidly said ,he was doing nothing. (Mr. Trump)
Unfortunately saying the election was stolen is not a crime as per the 1st amendment. (Again,I'm not trying to defend Mr. Trump.) I'm just pointing out how others might use this new information.
I hope I explained it better this time!
I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure if it helps for someone charged with acts of sedition related to Jan 6th to say you're just as innocent as he is. If I'm charged with murder, I don't see how it would be helpful for Charles Manson to come out and say I didn't do anything wrong. (not to mention it would be weird since he's dead).
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
No. I did not say that I thought all Mr.Trump did was give a speech. Again,I apologize if I am not presenting my message clearly.
I believe that you are referencing the text messags from his family and Fox News person Hannity? I would agree with your interpretation that they were telling him to do more during the riot,after it started. However, how someone interprets a conversation that was not intended for a vast amount of people,most likely will not be sufficient to hold Trump accountable.
I know Mr. Trump is a very divisive person for some people. Emotions are highly charged when the subject of him comes up. If animosity, hatred were enough to hold him accountable for the actions of some people that day,he would already be doing a long prison sentence or worse! Again, strong emotions will not get him convicted of a crime. Unfortunately in one sense but probably good in another? See? So divisive.
Considering Trump himself admitted January 6th resulted from his actions, I'm not sure how much work is left to be done to establish that.
I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure if it helps for someone charged with acts of sedition related to Jan 6th to say you're just as innocent as he is. If I'm charged with murder, I don't see how it would be helpful for Charles Manson to come out and say I didn't do anything wrong. (not to mention it would be weird since he's dead).
Considering Trump himself admitted January 6th resulted from his actions, I'm not sure how much work is left to be done to establish that.
Mr. Trump said that Jan.6 was a result from his actions? I didn't know that! Where is that info? I would love to read it.
Mr. Trump said that Jan.6 was a result from his actions? I didn't know that! Where is that info? I would love to read it.
This was the tweet that supposedly got Trump permanently banned from Twitter.
The idea that the election had been stolen from Trump supporters came from him, so to paraphrase; The riot of Jan 6th happened as a result of my actions.
Specializes in ED, ICU, MS/MT, PCU, CM, House Sup, Frontline mgr.
1 hour ago, MunoRN said:
This was the tweet that supposedly got Trump permanently banned from Twitter.
The idea that the election had been stolen from Trump supporters came from him, so to paraphrase; The riot of Jan 6th happened as a result of my actions.
Exactly! Traitor Trump is a criminal. He is just not a convicted criminal.
This was the tweet that supposedly got Trump permanently banned from Twitter.
The idea that the election had been stolen from Trump supporters came from him, so to paraphrase; The riot of Jan 6th happened as a result of my actions.
I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I thought in your last post he had said something actually placing the blame on himself. I get the impression he is placing the blame on who/what ever "stole" the election from him. Not what he said/did caused the riot. Kind of like "a riot is the voice of the unheard" type idea. Similar to what Chris Cuomo, former shamed CNN anchor said about the 2020 Summer riots.
Either he is extremely smart(doubtful) or he got lucky by adding "go home in love and peace.....". They could argue this isn't consistent with inciting an insurrection.
Hopefully this committee can get to the truth and bottom of all of this. And I hope they do it in a way that is transparent and honest. This will be under a microscope for sure and any deviation of the facts/truth will be picked out quickly. Not to mention exploited. Let the truth prevail and those who are guilty may justice be swift upon them as well!
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I thought in your last post he had said something actually placing the blame on himself. I get the impression he is placing the blame on who/what ever "stole" the election from him. Not what he said/did caused the riot. Kind of like "a riot is the voice of the unheard" type idea. Similar to what Chris Cuomo, former shamed CNN anchor said about the 2020 Summer riots.
Either he is extremely smart(doubtful) or he got lucky by adding "go home in love and peace.....". They could argue this isn't consistent with inciting an insurrection.
Hopefully this committee can get to the truth and bottom of all of this. And I hope they do it in a way that is transparent and honest. This will be under a microscope for sure and any deviation of the facts/truth will be picked out quickly. Not to mention exploited. Let the truth prevail and those who are guilty may justice be swift upon them as well!
No one stole the election from Trump, he simply lost the popular vote for the second consecutive time. That lie about a stolen and rigged election was authored by Trump. He started talking about the election as rigged months before we actually voted.
Kevin McCarthy apparently said that Trump accepted some responsibility when he spoke with him on the phone on the 6th, during a radio interview in California last year. Supposedly CNN had an audio clip of the content. Now apparently McCarthy can't really remember when he spoke with Trump or what might have been said that day. McCarthy also reportedly told republicans last year on a conference call that Trump accepted some responsibility, yet today he can't recall those comments. It's no wonder that he's being asked to provide some clarity about what he knows.
McCarthy doesn't come off as very credible when asked about these things in his press conference. As a poker player I would say that Kevin has a number of "tells".
I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I thought in your last post he had said something actually placing the blame on himself. I get the impression he is placing the blame on who/what ever "stole" the election from him. Not what he said/did caused the riot. Kind of like "a riot is the voice of the unheard" type idea. Similar to what Chris Cuomo, former shamed CNN anchor said about the 2020 Summer riots.
Either he is extremely smart(doubtful) or he got lucky by adding "go home in love and peace.....". They could argue this isn't consistent with inciting an insurrection.
Hopefully this committee can get to the truth and bottom of all of this. And I hope they do it in a way that is transparent and honest. This will be under a microscope for sure and any deviation of the facts/truth will be picked out quickly. Not to mention exploited. Let the truth prevail and those who are guilty may justice be swift upon them as well!
I'm not sure what other way to interpret that there could be.
I'm not sure how he could be blaming whomever "stole" the election from him when he made up the claim the election was stolen from him. Are you suggesting he forgot that he made it up and now believes it actually happened? He didn't really make it a secret that he was going to falsely claim the election was stolen, he said well before the election that if he lost he would claim the election was rigged.
He stated that he recognized that the January 6th riot occurred because people believed the election was stolen from them, they believed that because of him, so he conceded that it happened because of something he did, seems pretty straightforward.
No one stole the election from Trump, he simply lost the popular vote for the second consecutive time. That lie about a stolen and rigged election was authored by Trump. He started talking about the election as rigged months before we actually voted.
Kevin McCarthy apparently said that Trump accepted some responsibility when he spoke with him on the phone on the 6th, during a radio interview in California last year. Supposedly CNN had an audio clip of the content. Now apparently McCarthy can't really remember when he spoke with Trump or what might have been said that day. McCarthy also reportedly told republicans last year on a conference call that Trump accepted some responsibility, yet today he can't recall those comments. It's no wonder that he's being asked to provide some clarity about what he knows.
McCarthy doesn't come off as very credible when asked about these things in his press conference. As a poker player I would say that Kevin has a number of "tells".
Well there's where a major problem is. McCarthy won't be forth coming and some people with information about Mr. Trump's actions with the DOJ that was in the Washington Post article you posted remain anonymous.
Even if Trump alluded that he was to blame for the Jan.6 riot, is that inciting an insurrection? I feel as though the case for holding Trump accountable for inciting an insurrection will not hold legally. And with such things, public opinion is not enough when dealing with law. Especially criminal law.
If it were up to the strong emotions and feelings people have for Mr. Trump, he would have already been convicted, sentenced and executed 10 times over. Unfortunately no amount of strong feelings, good or bad is enough to hold someone responsible for a crime or exonerate them. Or thankfully it is not enough? It would be very dangerous to convict people with how someone feels about them rather then evidence against them.
It's very interesting to find out how this whole affair will play out!!
I'm not sure what other way to interpret that there could be.
I'm not sure how he could be blaming whomever "stole" the election from him when he made up the claim the election was stolen from him. Are you suggesting he forgot that he made it up and now believes it actually happened? He didn't really make it a secret that he was going to falsely claim the election was stolen, he said well before the election that if he lost he would claim the election was rigged.
He stated that he recognized that the January 6th riot occurred because people believed the election was stolen from them, they believed that because of him, so he conceded that it happened because of something he did, seems pretty straightforward.
Right. I do not think he believes he caused the violence that day. He said the lie but I do not think he thinks it was his fault that people got violent. Mr. Trump probably in his own head believes the election was stolen,or situations were manipulated to make him lose. So in his brain he did not lie because he believes what he said. He literally does not know he lied.
We all know he was the instigator because he's the one who very loudly and publicly claimed the election was stolen. That's completely irrefutable. Is this insurrection though?
LTC Advocate
38 Posts
No. I'm not saying how anyone should come to a conclusion. I usually trust people will form their own. I am simply discussing information in a link to the Washington Post article presented by another member. However, there is a point to be made that if they have enough evidence to charge these people, with sedition , the same people made comments to what Trump said and how they didn't think he was going to do anything. It could be interpreted that Trump did not incite the riot to some people. Or at the least he did not incite these people, the only ones charged. The problem being up to now,no one else has been charged with insurrection/sedition/ related charges.
Again,I'm not saying this is what I believe. However I think it will be much harder now to actually hold Trump accountable considering the only people to date who have been charged with sedition, out of their own mouths and candidly said ,he was doing nothing. (Mr. Trump)
Unfortunately saying the election was stolen is not a crime as per the 1st amendment. (Again,I'm not trying to defend Mr. Trump.) I'm just pointing out how others might use this new information.
I hope I explained it better this time!