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.
8 minutes ago, LTC Advocate said:
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 talking about facts and evidence, not feelings. A good example of feelings playing a role in people's opinions on important matters is the Mueller report and the feeling that people have that the report somehow exonerated Trump or disproved the idea that Trump's campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence operatives.
The facts and known evidence surrounding 010621 are pretty obviously not favorable to Trump at this point in time. There's even more evidence that we, the public, don't know yet but will very soon. Since neither Trump, nor his loyalists are cooperating with the committee's work it's fair to assume that those evidentiary things which might reflect Trump's perspective are not getting much "marketing" in those closed door interviews and testimony, especially in the absence of members like Jim Jordan.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
32 minutes ago, LTC Advocate said:
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?
Are you saying that Trump is delusional about the 2020 election results? Do you think that he's always believed that the election was rigged or just since the lie was repeated so often? Do you think it's odd that the Republican party is so attached to a political figure with obvious symptoms of mental illness (like delusion)?
You don't think that citizens rising up against their government could/should qualify as insurrection? What would have needed to have happened on 010621 for it to qualify?
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?
He's already acknowledged that he's responsible "that people got violent".
In referencing the riot that had occurred earlier in the day, he acknowledged that the riot occurred because the people involved were of the belief that the election was stolen, he is the one who was pushing that false claim.
To put it another way, the violence that occurred was due to his actions.
Are you saying that Trump is delusional about the 2020 election results? Do you think that he's always believed that the election was rigged or just since the lie was repeated so often? Do you think it's odd that the Republican party is so attached to a political figure with obvious symptoms of mental illness (like delusion)?
You don't think that citizens rising up against their government could/should qualify as insurrection? What would have needed to have happened on 010621 for it to qualify?
I'm not stating a personal opinion of what I think morally. I'm saying it most likely may turn out that there is not enough to charge him criminally for anything,or assign any legal retribution based on the facts and evidence. The 1st amendment gives us freedom to say what we like. Even if it means hearing something we don't Ike. In order to maintain our freedom and liberty, it means having to allow everyone to say what they want,even if we feel it's morally wrong. Although I think many would like to see him charged and guilty of insurrection, because they feel strongly about the events that day, legally I cannot see it happening.
I would not assign delusional to anyone unless I saw a objective assessment or a professional diagnosis. I could not assign that without a proper investigation. I can say I think or feel like he is delusional because I do think he believes what he says. However my beliefs and feelings cannot determine that.
Just as I can see what may be a mild/early congnition issue with President Biden, I could not and would not say that without evidence and science based clinical assessments.
I do think rising up against any type of government with violence to push any political positions is moral insurrection. But what I feel or think doesn't make it so. In legal terms that is. Legally it is to be determined.
Hopefully the Jan 6 commission can give us everyday people some incite. Hopefully we can move on and become a less divided country. I want to believe in the process. Even if the process doesn't result in what we think or feel it should. Even if I personally feel/ disagree with the conclusion.
He's already acknowledged that he's responsible "that people got violent".
In referencing the riot that had occurred earlier in the day, he acknowledged that the riot occurred because the people involved were of the belief that the election was stolen, he is the one who was pushing that false claim.
To put it another way, the violence that occurred was due to his actions.
Yes but that is different than saying, "It was my words and actions that caused the riot at the capital. I personally advised all the people and conspired for them to forcefully breach the capital and cause violence in order to overthrough a US Presidential election".
He sad the election was stolen , he didn't tell them to storm the capital. Again his words are blind luck. The part about "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" will aid in the argument that he did not incite the rioters. It will be said the people had free will.
May I add. This is not my personally opinion. It's what I believe will happen within the parameters of the law. I am not personally defending Mr.Trump!
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
I'm not stating a personal opinion of what I think morally. I'm saying it most likely may turn out that there is not enough to charge him criminally for anything,or assign any legal retribution based on the facts and evidence. The 1st amendment gives us freedom to say what we like. Even if it means hearing something we don't Ike. In order to maintain our freedom and liberty, it means having to allow everyone to say what they want,even if we feel it's morally wrong. Although I think many would like to see him charged and guilty of insurrection, because they feel strongly about the events that day, legally I cannot see it happening.
I would not assign delusional to anyone unless I saw a objective assessment or a professional diagnosis. I could not assign that without a proper investigation. I can say I think or feel like he is delusional because I do think he believes what he says. However my beliefs and feelings cannot determine that.
Just as I can see what may be a mild/early congnition issue with President Biden, I could not and would not say that without evidence and science based clinical assessments.
I do think rising up against any type of government with violence to push any political positions is moral insurrection. But what I feel or think doesn't make it so. In legal terms that is. Legally it is to be determined.
Hopefully the Jan 6 commission can give us everyday people some incite. Hopefully we can move on and become a less divided country. I want to believe in the process. Even if the process doesn't result in what we think or feel it should. Even if I personally feel/ disagree with the conclusion.
Personal opinions aside, what is the definition of delusion? If someone believes something that is known to be untrue, like you described, and they conduct themselves as if it's true even though it's clear that it's not true that's called delusion. That's what you described as how you believe Trump may be operating relative to the lie he started. For some reason you don't want to close that circle after making that excuse.
Do you think that the first amendment allows incitement? Do you think that it allows incitement of violence against the government? We know that, legally, lots of wealthy and powerful people have avoided accountability and punishment in this country. What we don't know is if we, as a country, are willing to allow wealthy and powerful people to toy with fascism and insurrection without accountability.
It's difficult to imagine how truth about January 6 from the Select Committee will unite the country when so many people are filled up with baloney about the topic and are reluctant to actually believe truth that is supported by fact. I mean, look at the number of people who continue to believe the lie about the election. Truth about election results and vote totals didn't unite people, it made Trump supporters more determined. Look at the Mueller report and the number of people who believe that Russia involvement was a hoax and Trump was exonerated. Truth didn't unite us. Too many people prefer "alternate" truths and facts.
Good points all. I will say that the truth doesn't always unite us. But it's the eventual acceptance of the truth that gives us some semblance of closure and moving on and in some ways defines us as a democracy. Look at the humble way Romney conceded his loss. Look at how Obama invited Trump to White House and immediately started calling him "President Elect Trump". We stayed divided and in fact in many ways it divided us more because we didn't like the outcome. But we accepted the truth.
Now look at Trump, and not only him, other leaders. The rare time MTG wore a mask it had "Trump Won" across it. Look at Jim Jordan and any other number of political leaders that through their silence or their suspicion that the election was rigged encouraged people. Look at the Republican leaders that suddenly decided they had to change the voting process. If Trump had conceded, and his supporters in congress accepted that, we still would have been divided and maybe even a protest (such as the women's protests after Trump won or the protests after G. W. Bush won) but perhaps there might not have been the breech of the White House and we wouldn't be talking about it a year later.
Personal opinions aside, what is the definition of delusion? If someone believes something that is known to be untrue, like you described, and they conduct themselves as if it's true even though it's clear that it's not true that's called delusion. That's what you described as how you believe Trump may be operating relative to the lie he started. For some reason you don't want to close that circle after making that excuse.
Do you think that the first amendment allows incitement? Do you think that it allows incitement of violence against the government? We know that, legally, lots of wealthy and powerful people have avoided accountability and punishment in this country. What we don't know is if we, as a country, are willing to allow wealthy and powerful people to toy with fascism and insurrection without accountability.
It's difficult to imagine how truth about January 6 from the Select Committee will unite the country when so many people are filled up with baloney about the topic and are reluctant to actually believe truth that is supported by fact. I mean, look at the number of people who continue to believe the lie about the election. Truth about election results and vote totals didn't unite people, it made Trump supporters more determined. Look at the Mueller report and the number of people who believe that Russia involvement was a hoax and Trump was exonerated. Truth didn't unite us. Too many people prefer "alternate" truths and facts.
We had plenty of warning from the psychiatric community before Trump's election that he was not fit for office. So it is no surprise that he fiddled like Nero while in the WH and left us more divided than we were before. That's what sociopaths do.
Personal opinions aside, what is the definition of delusion? If someone believes something that is known to be untrue, like you described, and they conduct themselves as if it's true even though it's clear that it's not true that's called delusion. That's what you described as how you believe Trump may be operating relative to the lie he started. For some reason you don't want to close that circle after making that excuse.
Do you think that the first amendment allows incitement? Do you think that it allows incitement of violence against the government? We know that, legally, lots of wealthy and powerful people have avoided accountability and punishment in this country. What we don't know is if we, as a country, are willing to allow wealthy and powerful people to toy with fascism and insurrection without accountability.
It's difficult to imagine how truth about January 6 from the Select Committee will unite the country when so many people are filled up with baloney about the topic and are reluctant to actually believe truth that is supported by fact. I mean, look at the number of people who continue to believe the lie about the election. Truth about election results and vote totals didn't unite people, it made Trump supporters more determined. Look at the Mueller report and the number of people who believe that Russia involvement was a hoax and Trump was exonerated. Truth didn't unite us. Too many people prefer "alternate" truths and facts.
I think the the majority of people do not trust the government. Either Democrat or republican. Each side thinks that there is baloney abound. It's because we are not unable to relate to each other and accept our different opinions anymore. It's the fist time I've seen it in my life time to this extent. It's is heartbreaking.
I also think the majority of Mr.Trump supporters do not think the election was stolen in a way with fraud and evil voting machines,I think they think that the mail in voting changes for COVID were grossly taken advantage of. And that the pandemic was exploited to get rid of Mr. Trump. I think there is a number of democrats that think the same but look the other way because its more acceptable to get rid of Mr.Trump. This is only my opinion but I present a friendly and open disposition and find that I can converse with both sides of the equation. Which I have. This is not to say I think these things, it's just some anecdotal information I would like to share with my fellow Nurses. I think sitting and listening to each other we might be able to unite as Americans again.
As for the Meuler Report. People will dismiss this because there were no charges. Not for Trump anyway. Not to mention the soft ball relations with Russian by the Biden administration now. Doesn't instill trust. Even in criminal trials, when a person gets off of a charge or isn't charged at all, allot of people will feel the person is still guilty. However they place their trust in the legal system and usually move on. There have been a few legal trials I've been personally invested in. They did not go the way that I liked. However I was able to find peace because I understood that even if our justice system fails to convict 10 guilty people, but that process prevents 1 innocent person from going to jail, then I know our system has worked,even if I disagree with the conclusion. Trump supporters will not accept the Meuller report because nothing came of it. Would a Democrat suddenly stop supporting President Biden in a report that said some unsavory possible illegal things about him? Probably not. And they should not because he was not held legally accountable. Not enough evidence to charge him? No, of course they would not accept it.
We have to let that one go in my opinion. Mr.Trump is no longer the President of the United States and probably will not be ever again. The constant Trump fixation will only continue to divide our beautiful country. Remember approximately half the people voted for him, not all can be evil seditionist. The democrats have who they want,stop giving Mr. Trump attention. If anything it only feeds his ego. Or could convince more to vote for him in 2024 if he runs. I'm going out on a limb here but I think the majority people on this thread will not want that! Just a hunch (wink,wink).
They opine that Trump was not the architect of trying to overturn the election (and I agree, he's not smart enough) and the groundwork was laid over several months.
Quote
The coup was hardly Trump’s full-blown brainchild. It was packaged for him. It was adapted, enhanced and intensified from longstanding Republican strategies for voter suppression. The coup was a variation on the theme from a well-worn playbook. Trump eagerly grasped for the plan handed to him.
I agree that we should stop talking about Trump, but I do think the attempt to overturn the election must be investigated.
Regarding the Oath Keepers, I suspect Steve Bannon and Roger Stone likely have connections to that mess.
toomuchbaloney
16,036 Posts
I'm talking about facts and evidence, not feelings. A good example of feelings playing a role in people's opinions on important matters is the Mueller report and the feeling that people have that the report somehow exonerated Trump or disproved the idea that Trump's campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence operatives.
The facts and known evidence surrounding 010621 are pretty obviously not favorable to Trump at this point in time. There's even more evidence that we, the public, don't know yet but will very soon. Since neither Trump, nor his loyalists are cooperating with the committee's work it's fair to assume that those evidentiary things which might reflect Trump's perspective are not getting much "marketing" in those closed door interviews and testimony, especially in the absence of members like Jim Jordan.