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.
We would feel like we would have to see non bias evidence for that.
What exactly what that non bias evidence look like? Is there any evidence that would be acceptable?
I know if I was giving money to an organization that there were hints about misappropriation of funds, I would want to know more. My guess is many Trump supporters would not even care.
What exactly what that non bias evidence look like? Is there any evidence that would be acceptable?
Probably not edited video and selective cut short tweets or things like that.
Probably something that is objective, not represented by democrats (mainly) and can be coraborated with documents and actual action taken against Trump.
Yes evidence would be acceptable. I actively try and find evidence of information to disprove my own opinion. There are very few things that I have found to date and in fact this is how I changed my dislike and impressions for Trump when he first took office. The more and more fantastical claims I heard about Trump was what triggered me to my own research. I've said this before, it isn't always the context of information, is how and by who it is represented and presented.
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.
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.
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
The assertion was that Rehl couldn't be a victim of a political witchhunt as the judge who ordered him held without bail was Kelly, a Trump appointee.
If the poster knows this, then there should be a pretty easy to find source to back it up. But, at least three of you tried without success to find one.
So, based on what the original discussion was about and other things I'm doing today, explaining and sourcing how your comment was a somewhat inaccurate is not that important to me.
My question was to the one who made the assertion. You injected yourself into my "little game". You're free to do so. But don't whine when it doesn’t go the way you planned.
If you can actually find a source that back up EMT B assertion, I will stand corrected.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
14 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Probably not edited video and selective cut short tweets or things like that.
Probably something that is objective, not represented by democrats (mainly) and can be coraborated with documents and actual action taken against Trump.
Yes evidence would be acceptable. I actively try and find evidence of information to disprove my own opinion. There are very few things that I have found to date and in fact this is how I changed my dislike and impressions for Trump when he first took office. The more and more fantastical claims I heard about Trump was what triggered me to my own research. I've said this before, it isn't always the context of information, is how and by who it is represented and presented.
My apologies. As I reread my post below, it is painfully obvious that it was poorly edited as I was typing this on my phone.
On 6/10/2022 at 11:35 AM, chare said:
[...]
Mr. Kelly, who will apparently preside over the case, revoked bail for Mr. Biggs and Mr. Nordean deny bail for Mr. Rehl and continues to deny their bail requests.
What this should have said is this:
Quote
Mr. Kelly, who will apparently preside over the case, revoked bail for Mr. Biggs and Mr. Nordean and continues to do so, it is likely that he would continue to deny bail for Mr. Rehl as well.
I agree with you that Mr. Kelly was not the first to deny Mr. Rehl's bail request.
On 6/10/2022 at 11:35 AM, chare said:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Lloret initially granted Mr. Rehl bail at $50,000, and subsequently granted a stay to allow the government to appeal. I am unable to find a source but believe he subsequently denied Mr. Rehl’s bail.
Mr. Kelly, who will apparently preside over the case, revoked bail for Mr. Biggs and Mr. Nordean deny bail for Mr. Rehl and continues to deny their bail requests.
Probably something that is objective, not represented by democrats (mainly) and can be coraborated with documents and actual action taken against Trump.
Yes evidence would be acceptable. I actively try and find evidence of information to disprove my own opinion. There are very few things that I have found to date and in fact this is how I changed my dislike and impressions for Trump when he first took office. The more and more fantastical claims I heard about Trump was what triggered me to my own research. I've said this before, it isn't always the context of information, is how and by who it is represented and presented.
Today during the hearing, we heard sworn testimony from several of Trump's advisors that he lost the election. We also heard that they informed the former president of this. Those interviews ran for hours. Do you really want to listen to all of it?
We also heard that Trump people continued to send out emails requesting donations to help him uncover fraud. Those should be easy enough to find.
There is no proof that any of those funds were used to investigate Trump's claims of fraud. I should think the onus is on who every handled the money to show it was spent as promised.
I see legal analysts opining that if the allegations about soliciting funds and then not using them for promised usages could be grounds for mail/wire fraud.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
36 minutes ago, nursej22 said:
I see legal analysts opining that if the allegations about soliciting funds and then not using them for promised usages could be grounds for mail/wire fraud.
How many Republicans used those lies for fund raising?
Today during the hearing, we heard sworn testimony from several of Trump's advisors that he lost the election. We also heard that they informed the former president of this. Those interviews ran for hours. Do you really want to listen to all of it?
We also heard that Trump people continued to send out emails requesting donations to help him uncover fraud. Those should be easy enough to find.
There is no proof that any of those funds were used to investigate Trump's claims of fraud. I should think the onus is on who every handled the money to show it was spent as promised.
Who are the "Trump people"? Are they actually affiliated with Trump, or PAC's?
Who are the "Trump people"? Are they actually affiliated with Trump, or PAC's?
This is a very good question. I plan to watch today's hearing after work tonight and I hope those specifics are covered.
One group raising funds was Save America, a PAC started by Trump after the November election. So if a PAC was formed by Trump, does that mean its affiliated with Trump?
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.
Not true. Facts and truth can both be presented in a bias manner. This can include wording in a headline or in a way information is presented.
A good example is what another member described. Fox News frequently presents information in a right wing bias however the info is still factual.
Same with CNN. It frequently presents information that is factual but presented in left wing bias.
All humans are bias to an extent. Doesn't mean what they believe is not based in facts.
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?
Yes! The Reublicans are using the terrible economy as their campaign points. Enflating it(pun not intended) and exploiting it for their political benefit.
And in my opinion, the Democrats are enflating and exploiting Jan.6 to prevent Trump from running again or to attempt to get as many people as possible to hear what happened Jan.6 . Presenting info that is already known with selective video editing and production and reading statements and tweets not in their entirety.
We all know this committee will not result in any criminal charges against Trump or any formal sanction. Just like the impeachments and Russian Collusion. This is not the point. The point is for people to hear all of it as much as possible(hence blanket prime time broadcasting) knowing there will be no formal process or formal defense. As long as some people hear it, some people will believe it and hopefully that will reflect in the primaries and in 2024. Does anyone believe this committee will be successful in making either Republicans or Democrats change their mind on Trump?
Where as it is usual and expected that political parties will make certain topics a focus in their campaigns, this, in my opinion is a deceitful dishonest tactic
That being said, I will still consider any credible, as least bias evidence as possible. I have not watched today's committee. Has there been any evidence that we have not already heard?
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,854 Posts
What exactly what that non bias evidence look like? Is there any evidence that would be acceptable?
I know if I was giving money to an organization that there were hints about misappropriation of funds, I would want to know more. My guess is many Trump supporters would not even care.