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.
1 hour ago, LTC Advocate said:
I'm just offering information I have learned and general summary of what I think is happening based on conversations I have had and allot of reading. I have no concrete evidence or proof of any of the things I said I think people might be feeling.
As for democrats abandoning Biden if he was guilty of the things most democrats think of Trump? I would have to respectfully disagree. In my own conclusions from various sources of personal interactions and subjects I have read from an abundance of sources, I do not think a large group of democrats would abandon Biden. Just as the Trump supporters refuse to accept anything negative about Trump,I think there is a large number of democrats that would also deny and explain everything away.on the bases of anything to keep Trump away. Mostly the highly visible democrat politicians that careers depend on it. There is not much room for criticism of Biden and his policies in th Democrat party.
However,everyday people both Republican or Democrat probably are not that extreme and will conceded things they like and dislike of President Biden and Mr. Trump.
I think allot of people didn't trust the government previously,not just now. Covid and all the events with mandating, masks,conflicting information(or interpreted conflicting information) has allot to do with it.
It should be "we the people" but it feels more like,"we the people,except you" type of atmosphere. This applying to both sides.
Mutal understanding and compromise seems to be lacking and unfortunately it is "we the people" the everyday people, that suffer the most.
In my opinion,both sides should do better!
Do you think that your perception that people don't trust government is grown from the antigovernment mantra that we've heard from republican politicians for decades? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/ I would say that most Americans trusted the government agencies about covid; most stayed home, masked and then vaccinated when that was available...it's been a noncompliant minority which has troubled our health system and economy relative to covid, right?
I didn't say that Democrats would abandon Biden based upon feelings but based upon the evidence that is available that is like the evidence available about Trump corruption or disqualifying character flaws. For example, Democrats didn't lose too much sleep over ending the political career of Al Franken because of some barely credible accusations. Liberals aren't inherently more moral or ethical than conservatives but the political parties are not on equal footing when it comes to tolerance for bad behavior from elected officials. The current dialog among democratic legislators and everyday liberal voters seems to stand in contrast to your belief that there's some type of monolithic devotion to Biden and his protection. Beerman recently shared polling which seems to disagree with your opinion.
I would agree that there's an attitude of us v others in this country right now...a type of tribalism that has been growing over the last several decades. I would also agree that mutual commitment to understanding and compromise are lacking but I wouldn't agree that it's a "both sides" problem. Only one side is refusing to engage in any bipartisan compromise while complaining about the president's failure to achieve bipartisan agreement.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
Again I have to disagree. I do not think Mr.Trump is a fascist nor the millions of people who voted for him. In good continous I can not assign that to my fellow Americans. I know many who did vote for him and they are not fascist. If this the way you think,what would you propose be done about it? All the eople you say have been convinced into fascist? People can and will think what they like.
Why is it they have not charged him by now? If there is no current reason not to? I don't understand.
I think I referred to the voting machines being evil.
Who said that the millions of Trump voters were fascists? I said that Trump was leading them down a fascist pathway and that's true whether or not conservatives can comprehend or admit that reality.
Stanley, who is the author of the 2018 book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, tells NPR's All Things Considered: "The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors."
Stanley says recent global events, including the pandemic and the protests, have substantiated his concern about how fascist rhetoric is showing up in politics and policies around the world.
"The United States is teetering on the edge of violence here. We're already, I think, in a cold civil war," she says. "We've got a chance now to turn this around. But if we don't take it, we're heading down that autocratic path that we've seen in other countries."
We must expose Trump for what he is to stop the movement.
Voting machines aren't evil, they are machines which make it easier to tabulate vote totals and results. People who lie about elections and voting to benefit themselves or an ideology are perhaps the source of evil you mention.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
Out of the source you linked,it says the following:
" First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot(whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or "emotionally charged rhetoric" does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn't qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant's words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn't enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.
With what we know so far, I would agree that Mr.Trumps rhetoric upto and on Jan.6 was careless and emotionally charged. And unless they uncover something,First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or "emotionally charged rhetoric" does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn't qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant's words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn't enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.there is nothing to suggest he planned the for what happened that day.(not yet) Both those points does not qualify as imminent lawless action. The point of, "likely to provoke or urge a crowd into violence" is subjective on the first 2 points.
Unless there is some drastic inflammatory information that comes up, I do not see any criminal charges being held against him. A whole lot of people will not be happy. I hope this won't cause more riots.
Again,this is not my personal opinion. I am making no statements to the point that Mr. Trump is guilty or innocent. I am just predicting what I think will not happen.
Trump appears to have intended that the mob fight like hell to stop the steal. By the sounds of the testimony that the committee has heard and reporting directly after the coup attempt, Trump was watching the events with some enjoyment.
Trump had a plan for harm, it included not allowing the transition of power to Biden and seizing that lost power for himself. Trump still promotes that lie that the election results were part of a fraud. There's no question that Trump and other speakers rallied that mob with violent and aggressive words and imagery. There's no question that Trump told them to go to the Capitol building and that thousands of them did just that. There's no question that the crowd then engaged in violence and threats of violence against members of Congress, for hours, until Trump asked them to leave...and they did.
I think you may be correct and Trump will not be held accountable for his crimes against our democracy. Our government and department of justice have been historically reluctant to hold wealthy, influential and/or powerful white men accountable for all manner of very serious crimes. Failing to hold to account seditionists and the authoritarian who incited them will result in the loss of our republic. A great deal is at stake.
Trump appears to have intended that the mob fight like hell to stop the steal. By the sounds of the testimony that the committee has heard and reporting directly after the coup attempt, Trump was watching the events with some enjoyment.
Trump had a plan for harm, it included not allowing the transition of power to Biden and seizing that lost power for himself. Trump still promotes that lie that the election results were part of a fraud. There's no question that Trump and other speakers rallied that mob with violent and aggressive words and imagery. There's no question that Trump told them to go to the Capitol building and that thousands of them did just that. There's no question that the crowd then engaged in violence and threats of violence against members of Congress, for hours, until Trump asked them to leave...and they did.
I think you may be correct and Trump will not be held accountable for his crimes against our democracy. Our government and department of justice have been historically reluctant to hold wealthy, influential and/or powerful white men accountable for all manner of very serious crimes. Failing to hold to account seditionists and the authoritarian who incited them will result in the loss of our republic. A great deal is at stake.
Well I guess it comes down to due process. With the more left DOJ and Jan.6 committee, I do not think they will fail to hold Mr. Trump accountable if he is. I think they will fine tooth comb everything so hopefully they will not miss anything and justice will be done. The way is should be.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
58 minutes ago, LTC Advocate said:
Well I guess it comes down to due process. With the more left DOJ and Jan.6 committee, I do not think they will fail to hold Mr. Trump accountable if he is. I think they will fine tooth comb everything so hopefully they will not miss anything and justice will be done. The way is should be.
What makes you say that the DOJ is more left? Are you implying that Trump's interference and pressure in the department pushed their perspective to the right and now Biden has pushed it to the left? Do you think that justice and law and order have a political leaning?
Did it seem to you like Trump put pressure on his attorneys general to do as he wanted them to? Do you recall why Trump was unhappy with Jeff Sessions?
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
2 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
Well I guess it comes down to due process. With the more left DOJ and Jan.6 committee, I do not think they will fail to hold Mr. Trump accountable if he is. I think they will fine tooth comb everything so hopefully they will not miss anything and justice will be done. The way is should be.
This is exactly why I continue to talk about Trump. His self-serving falsehoods have a pernicious effect that goes far beyond who he is as a person. Sometimes, in an effort to avoid talking about him I'll call it Trumpist, or Trumpism. Either way, he is undoubtedly the source of this stuff.
It is true that a president may appoint an Attorney General who holds a political ideology that is similar to his. This is true of both parties.
However, Trump is the first in my memory to accuse the career agents, the rank and file so to speak-- of a widespread political agenda, and I would challenge anyone to provide evidence of "a more left DOJ". The agents Trump attacked had been working for the Justice Department for decades. These career agents, as citizens, are allowed to have opinions as long as they keep those opinions out of their official duties.
Let us remember that Trump first attempted to improperly influence the Justice Department when he first invited James Comey to the White House in an effort to protect Michael Flynn, a character who was later to be proven utterly unfit for any government position, let alone National Security Advisor.
This is exactly why I continue to talk about Trump. His self-serving falsehoods have a pernicious effect that goes far beyond who he is as a person. Sometimes, in an effort to avoid talking about him I'll call it Trumpist, or Trumpism. Either way, he is undoubtedly the source of this stuff.
It is true that a president may appoint an Attorney General who holds a political ideology that is similar to his. This is true of both parties.
However, Trump is the first in my memory to accuse the career agents, the rank and file so to speak-- of a widespread political agenda, and I would challenge anyone to provide evidence of "a more left DOJ". The agents Trump attacked had been working for the Justice Department for decades. These career agents, as citizens, are allowed to have opinions as long as they keep those opinions out of their official duties.
Let us remember that Trump first attempted to improperly influence the Justice Department when he first invited James Comey to the White House in an effort to protect Michael Flynn, a character who was later to be proven utterly unfit for any government position, let alone National Security Advisor.
I hear what you are saying and I also think Trump likes being talked about,even talked about bad,as long as he is being talked about......
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
13 hours ago, LTC Advocate said:
I hear what you are saying and I also think Trump likes being talked about,even talked about bad,as long as he is being talked about......
That's because Trump is a narcissist. It was evident during the 4 years of his corrupt and chaotic presidency that Trump craved attention even if it was not flattering. His social media was evidence of his shameless and unacceptable need to be the center of attention. Trump and his inflammatory language that resulted in the attempt to change the election results on 010621 are rightly talked about now relative to accountability for that violence.
I'm still wondering why you think that the DOJ is left leaning at this moment in time. Will you answer that or have you decided that you don't really believe that to the degree that you can defend it? Can you explain?
That's because Trump is a narcissist. It was evident during the 4 years of his corrupt and chaotic presidency that Trump craved attention even if it was not flattering. His social media was evidence of his shameless and unacceptable need to be the center of attention. Trump and his inflammatory language that resulted in the attempt to change the election results on 010621 are rightly talked about now relative to accountability for that violence.
I'm still wondering why you think that the DOJ is left leaning at this moment in time. Will you answer that or have you decided that you don't really believe that to the degree that you can defend it? Can you explain?
Yes, LTC. Curious minds want to know what evidence you have that the DOJ leans left. If it is left, why hasn't the public been able to see a fully re-dacted report of the Mueller investigation?
“The four individuals we’ve subpoenaed today advanced unsupported theories about election fraud, pushed efforts to overturn the election results or were in direct contact with the former president about attempts to stop the counting of electoral votes,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, said in a statement.
What do you think? Claim executive privilege, plead the 5th, or just refuse to show?
Rudolph Giuliani actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of the former President and sought to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results. He was reportedly in contact with then-President Trump and various Members of Congress regarding strategies for delaying or overturning the results of the 2020 election.
Jenna Ellis reportedly prepared and circulated two memos purporting to analyze the constitutional authority for the Vice President to reject or delay counting electoral votes from states that had submitted alternate slates of electors.
Sidney Powell actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of former President Trump in litigation and public appearances.
Boris Epshteyn reportedly attended meetings at the Willard Hotel in the days leading up to January 6th and had a call with former President Trump on the morning of January 6th to discuss options to delay the certification of election results in the event of Vice President Pence’s unwillingness to deny or delay the certification.
To refresh memories,Boris Epshteyn was a Trump TV surrogate, served as special assistant to the president & transition team, abruptly left his White House position in March 2017. He had a contentious relationship with WH press room staff, had big blowup with Fox News producers and even let go by Sinclair TV; was a long time friend of Eric Trump.
This is after the committee received requested WH cell phone records which indicated they made calls there per ABC News. These subpoenas mark the first direct action the committee has taken against a member of the Trump family. While the National Archives plans to release four pages of Trump-era White House documents to the House Committee on Wednesday.
See that the January 6th committee following the Nursing Process:
Subjective: set up committee teams to capture data regarding January 6th event
Objective: Began review of data collected regarding event. Asked for anyone with information to contact the committee. Set up interviews with over 300 persons who volunteered info.
Action: Press releases posted on website of some committee activities. Sending subpoena's to those not co-operating, planing future hearings to start in March. Refer to DOJ those not responding to subpoenas. Will draft report from info received.
Plan: Make recommendations for future legislation and final report ~ end of year.
Appears that concentric rings of those having access to inner WH office and Trump, tightening to those closest to Trump promoting the "Big Lie" that Trump won using false information voiced to the public. I expect hearings to be BIG like the Watergate Hearings that I was glued to as worked nights, slept evenings. Horray for today's easy auto TV recordings.
toomuchbaloney
16,036 Posts
Do you think that your perception that people don't trust government is grown from the antigovernment mantra that we've heard from republican politicians for decades? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/ I would say that most Americans trusted the government agencies about covid; most stayed home, masked and then vaccinated when that was available...it's been a noncompliant minority which has troubled our health system and economy relative to covid, right?
I didn't say that Democrats would abandon Biden based upon feelings but based upon the evidence that is available that is like the evidence available about Trump corruption or disqualifying character flaws. For example, Democrats didn't lose too much sleep over ending the political career of Al Franken because of some barely credible accusations. Liberals aren't inherently more moral or ethical than conservatives but the political parties are not on equal footing when it comes to tolerance for bad behavior from elected officials. The current dialog among democratic legislators and everyday liberal voters seems to stand in contrast to your belief that there's some type of monolithic devotion to Biden and his protection. Beerman recently shared polling which seems to disagree with your opinion.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/11/12/the-character-of-american-democracy-values-based-leadership/
https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/violence-at-the-capitol/ethics-and-certifying-the-election/
I would agree that there's an attitude of us v others in this country right now...a type of tribalism that has been growing over the last several decades. I would also agree that mutual commitment to understanding and compromise are lacking but I wouldn't agree that it's a "both sides" problem. Only one side is refusing to engage in any bipartisan compromise while complaining about the president's failure to achieve bipartisan agreement.
ssn_key_findings_fried_on_distrust_in_government.pdf