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.
OK, so you believe conjecture and suspicions and claims about democrats inflating covid data or evidence or mitigation guidance? And you believe that democrats misrepresented covid information for some unspecified political gain?
Do I understand you correctly?
So instead of using ad hominem, saying strawman, defaming a source,referring to social media,or "feelings and emotions" you now use derogatory words such as "conjecture, suspicions, claims" in attempt to discredit and make my opinion seem ridiculous and far fetched?
I said, I think that the democrats saw an opportunity to utilize like a global pandemic in order to sway voters.
There was already a conversation about how something can be extremely bias ,but still be factual. Tweety explained it well.
Every election has the campaign points. Like gun laws, immigration, tough on crime etc. They cater to the issues that will gain the votes from their voting base. In my opinion, for the democrats, COVID was one of theirs. They pushed it hard, highlighted all the "bad" things Trump did and presented it in a way in which supported them and used it to make Trump look bad.
Not speculation etc etc.......
A very common political strategy used by politicians since before I and even you were born.
So instead of using ad hominem, saying strawman, defaming a source,referring to social media,or "feelings and emotions" you now use derogatory words such as "conjecture, suspicions, claims" in attempt to discredit and make my opinion seem ridiculous and far fetched?
I said, I think that the democrats saw an opportunity to utilize like a global pandemic in order to sway voters.
There was already a conversation about how something can be extremely bias ,but still be factual. Tweety explained it well.
Every election has the campaign points. Like gun laws, immigration, tough on crime etc. They cater to the issues that will gain the votes from their voting base. In my opinion, for the democrats, COVID was one of theirs. They pushed it hard, highlighted all the "bad" things Trump did and presented it in a way in which supported them and used it to make Trump look bad.
Not speculation etc etc.......
A very common political strategy used by politicians since before I and even you were born.
A decision or view based on facts vs based on bias are by definition two different things. Bias is a view of a person or a group that is not based in facts.
So I'm curious how Democrats unfairly used Trump's response to Covid against him.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
So instead of using ad hominem, saying strawman, defaming a source,referring to social media,or "feelings and emotions" you now use derogatory words such as "conjecture, suspicions, claims" in attempt to discredit and make my opinion seem ridiculous and far fetched?
I said, I think that the democrats saw an opportunity to utilize like a global pandemic in order to sway voters.
There was already a conversation about how something can be extremely bias ,but still be factual. Tweety explained it well.
Every election has the campaign points. Like gun laws, immigration, tough on crime etc. They cater to the issues that will gain the votes from their voting base. In my opinion, for the democrats, COVID was one of theirs. They pushed it hard, highlighted all the "bad" things Trump did and presented it in a way in which supported them and used it to make Trump look bad.
Not speculation etc etc.......
A very common political strategy used by politicians since before I and even you were born.
But you use strawman arguments to try to discredit my opinions and make them seem far fetched or ridiculous. Misrepresenting my words so that you can argue something that I didn't say is dishonest rather than fair, it's a strawman argument.
I suggest that some like yourself may feel like COVID was used by democrats to try to sway voters because Trump politicized the pandemic and the US response. That means that Trump created a political ideological divide in the middle of the mitigation, Trump even politicized national aid to states in the early months when he was lying about transmission and how many cases of covid there were in country. Kushner was a failure in organizing federal covid relief, it was clear that Jared had no idea what the role of the federal government entails during an emergency.
You are welcome to have negative opinions of democrats, Lord knows that I have some negative opinions of Trump Republicans. However, without specific examples or supporting documentation it sounds so very speculative to suggest that "they pushed it hard". What does that even mean? It's a pandemic... everyone was supposed to follow the public health guidance... not just liberals. When you say that democrats highlighted all the "bad" things that Trump did are you suggesting that the bad things shouldn't have been highlighted or discussed or that there really weren't bad things to highlight? You certainly can't be contending that republicans wouldn't criticize democrats over pandemic response.
A decision or view based on facts vs based on bias are by definition two different things. Bias is a view of a person or a group that is not based in facts.
So I'm curious how Democrats unfairly used Trump's response to Covid against him.
The poster said "They cater to the issues that will gain the votes from their voting base. In my opinion, for the democrats, COVID was one of theirs. They pushed it hard, highlighted all the "bad" things Trump did and presented it in a way in which supported them and used it to make Trump look bad. "
I don't think the poster said they did this unfairly. I agree with the poster, it was a campaign issue and the Democrats framed it in a way to their advantage. It actually was quite easy, early in 2020 his handling of covid was disapproved. It make sense that democrats would highlight all the "bad" things Trump did.
It wasn't made up that hospitals were filling up, people were dying and doctors and nurses were practically on their hands and knees begging people to do what they can and that it was real.
It was up to Trump to highlight the good such as a vaccine which could have been his crowning achievement. Like it or not covid was center stage. But he was sowing the seeds of that the election was going to be fraudulent
I don't think it's a criticism that opponents highlight the "bad" (posters word and posters quote) especially in a bad situation out of control. The current equivalent is inflation. The latest numbers show another 40 year high for inflation and the sitting president is getting massive disapproval for his handling of this situation. Rick Scott, the richest senator, called him a rich kid that can't relate to the average person is doing "nothing" for inflation. The theme for the upcoming elections is being sowed. I'm not going to criticize them for doing this when they could be highlighting the low unemployment rate, record high corporate profits and rising wages (and no it's not keeping up with inflation). Why would they?
But you use strawman arguments to try to discredit my opinions and make them seem far fetched or ridiculous. Misrepresenting my words so that you can argue something that I didn't say is dishonest rather than fair, it's a strawman argument.
I suggest that some like yourself may feel like COVID was used by democrats to try to sway voters because Trump politicized the pandemic and the US response. That means that Trump created a political ideological divide in the middle of the mitigation, Trump even politicized national aid to states in the early months when he was lying about transmission and how many cases of covid there were in country. Kushner was a failure in organizing federal covid relief, it was clear that Jared had no idea what the role of the federal government entails during an emergency.
You are welcome to have negative opinions of democrats, Lord knows that I have some negative opinions of Trump Republicans. However, without specific examples or supporting documentation it sounds so very speculative to suggest that "they pushed it hard". What does that even mean? It's a pandemic... everyone was supposed to follow the public health guidance... not just liberals. When you say that democrats highlighted all the "bad" things that Trump did are you suggesting that the bad things shouldn't have been highlighted or discussed or that there really weren't bad things to highlight? You certainly can't be contending that republicans wouldn't criticize democrats over pandemic response.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to convince anyone really, it's just my opinion. I accept my opinion may or may not be accurate! Or a little of both.
I have negative opinions about Republican too. Other than a few issues, I wouldn't be considered a Republican. Sometimes I go toward the left and the right. As I said, I find there is more negative discussions toward Republicans so I do not really have a change to defend Democrats.
I will say that the images I saw of the violent part of the Jan. 6 protest were disturbing for me, although nothing new. Those people should be charged and held accountable.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to convince anyone really, it's just my opinion. I accept my opinion may or may not be accurate! Or a little of both.
I have negative opinions about Republican too. Other than a few issues, I wouldn't be considered a Republican. Sometimes I go toward the left and the right. As I said, I find there is more negative discussions toward Republicans so I do not really have a change to defend Democrats.
Of course, they will criticize each other and try and elivate themselfs. How would they win elections if they didn't?
I will say that the images I saw of the violent part of the Jan. 6 protest were disturbing for me, although nothing new. Those people should be charged and held accountable. I see some treatment of the offenders of Jan.6 and see some issues that I would say is more harsh than a left leaning offender involved in riots. However I need to do more research before I fully form an opinion on that.
It's not really important enough to me to spend the time and effort.
I only went as far as I did because of the responses from another poster. I was inviting them to show that they knew what they were talking about. They were unable to.
I only caught part of today's hearing and will watch it later, but I did hear that the Trump organization raised $250 million after the election to help investigate fraud, and it wasn't spent for that. Representative Lofgren said "not only was there the big lie, but there was the big rip-off."
I wonder how supporters feel about their money going into The Trump Hotel and Mark Meadows charity?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 minutes ago, nursej22 said:
I only caught part of today's hearing and will watch it later, but I did hear that the Trump organization raised $250 million after the election to help investigate fraud, and it wasn't spent for that. Representative Lofgren said "not only was there the big lie, but there was the big rip-off."
I wonder how supporters feel about their money going into The Trump Hotel and Mark Meadows charity?
It's not really important enough to me to spend the time and effort.
[...]
So, it was important enough that you asked, at least twice, who first denied Mr. Rehl's bail. Then, in at least two other posts you took the time to post that those responding were wrong. Then you post this.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
[...]
I only went as far as I did because of the responses from another poster. ...
And while it didn't amount to much, and I did find a few interesting reads while reviewing this, you apparently didn't mind including me in your little game as well.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
[...]
... I was inviting them to show that they knew what they were talking about. They were unable to.
As you apparently are as well.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche
I only caught part of today's hearing and will watch it later, but I did hear that the Trump organization raised $250 million after the election to help investigate fraud, and it wasn't spent for that. Representative Lofgren said "not only was there the big lie, but there was the big rip-off."
I wonder how supporters feel about their money going into The Trump Hotel and Mark Meadows charity?
We would feel like we would have to see non bias evidence for that.
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
So instead of using ad hominem, saying strawman, defaming a source,referring to social media,or "feelings and emotions" you now use derogatory words such as "conjecture, suspicions, claims" in attempt to discredit and make my opinion seem ridiculous and far fetched?
I said, I think that the democrats saw an opportunity to utilize like a global pandemic in order to sway voters.
There was already a conversation about how something can be extremely bias ,but still be factual. Tweety explained it well.
Every election has the campaign points. Like gun laws, immigration, tough on crime etc. They cater to the issues that will gain the votes from their voting base. In my opinion, for the democrats, COVID was one of theirs. They pushed it hard, highlighted all the "bad" things Trump did and presented it in a way in which supported them and used it to make Trump look bad.
Not speculation etc etc.......
A very common political strategy used by politicians since before I and even you were born.