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.
Again, it really can't be proven that Trump incited the violence that occurred later that day, or that he didn't condemn it. But like I said before he set the stage and I hold him responsible.
You are maybe presuming that they can't prove that he incited them? Incitement does not have to occur only at the time of the event. Do you remember when Trump supporters decided to return to the capitol for another protest? Without Trump's incitement the crowd was small and uninspired. It was quite a contrast.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, Tweety said:
That's quite a spin. I mean it's not hearth shattering that right wing nuts Hannity and Ingraham used their connections to try to get Trump to make a public statement.
That's not the point. I'm pointing out that on January 6 they wanted Trump to stop the mob attack that he had incited...they saw him as the person who was in control of that mob's mentality...they were at the capitol fighting for Trump and his cause to Stop the Steal. They recognized that what was happening was not OK. The point is that as the days, weeks and months that followed they made certain that their content and commentary told a different story about who was responsible and how dangerous it was. That's indoctrination of their audience...selling a fabricated narrative to benefit a political agenda. It's successful...look at how many people think that what happened on January 6 was no big deal.
LOL....I can see how someone let's their hatred for Trump impair their reasoning skills would see it that way.
I think they saw him more as the person who could stop it, and correctly predicted he would be blamed for it.
He should be blamed for it and I already stated why.
I would include in your reasons they knew he would be blamed for it and they were concerned about his legacy and what they had accomplished up until then. They correctly predicted it would be destroyed, however a year later they seemed to have recovered nicely and lifted him up. At the same time Fox New's agenda clearly has set up Republicans very well, along with the challenges of the Biden presidency. Their influence is not to be denied. They can relax, what they've wanted to accomplish is intact.
I will say that with his election fraud nonsense he has destroyed his legacy. He will forever be linked to this day. His legacy could have been the vaccine, the great economy, any number of things but he couldn't handle the loss.
That's not the point. I'm pointing out that on January 6 they wanted Trump to stop the mob attack that he had incited...they saw him as the person who was in control of that mob's mentality...they were at the capitol fighting for Trump and his cause to Stop the Steal. They recognized that what was happening was not OK. The point is that as the days, weeks and months that followed they made certain that their content and commentary told a different story about who was responsible and how dangerous it was. That's indoctrination of their audience...selling a fabricated narrative to benefit a political agenda. It's successful...look at how many people think that what happened on January 6 was no big deal.
As Beerman has said, by the time the attack was going on there was nothing that Trump could do to stop it. They weren't on their social media look at Trump's tweets or waiting for a statement from Trump to stop. By then it was up to law enforcement to stop it.
I don't think that was the purpose of their texts. They wanted Trump to make a statement to protect his legacy, what they've accomplished and separate himself from the attacks. He wasn't acting fast enough for them and it took several hours for a televised statement which he put up on social media. That wasn't fast enough for them.
But I do agree that their post January 6th agenda sounded much different.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
12 hours ago, Beerman said:
LOL....I can see how someone let's their hatred for Trump impair their reasoning skills would see it that way.
I think they saw him more as the person who could stop it, and correctly predicted he would be blamed for it.
You see what you want to see and generally you see hatred for Trump in any discussion of his corruption.
So why could Trump stop the angry mob with a little video? It doesn't take a genius to understand that the fellow who started the lie, promoted a big rally about the lie and then gave the keynote speech which incited the mob to fight for the lie at the Capitol might be "blamed" for the lies and violence.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, Tweety said:
As Beerman has said, by the time the attack was going on there was nothing that Trump could do to stop it. I don't think that was the purpose of their texts. They wanted Trump to make a statement to protect his legacy, what they've accomplished and separate himself from the attacks. He wasn't acting fast enough for them and it took several hours for a televised statement which he put up on social media. That wasn't fast enough for them.
Why was the violence going on at the capitol? Everyone knew that was Trump's mob, including Trump. Trump didn't act fast enough for anyone concerned about the capitol or our republic. Trump incited the mob and then failed to do anything to calm that mob because he was interested in discovering what would happen if allowed to play out. He thought that members of Congress should be as upset about the election stealing a the mob was.
They were desperate for Trump to calm his crowd because it's hard to sell a riot to an audience as a protest after you've been calling other protests riots for months and months. Even they were stunned at how easily Trump inspired working class people to violently attack their own democracy...all it took were lies and the media platforms to spread them. That kind of destructive authoritarian messaging is much easier in the digital age than it was earlier in the 20th century.
Why was the violence going on at the capitol? Everyone knew that was Trump's mob, including Trump. Trump didn't act fast enough for anyone concerned about the capitol or our republic. Trump incited the mob and then failed to do anything to calm that mob because he was interested in discovering what would happen if allowed to play out. He thought that members of Congress should be as upset about the election stealing a the mob was.
They were desperate for Trump to calm his crowd because it's hard to sell a riot to an audience as a protest after you've been calling other protests riots for months and months. Even they were stunned at how easily Trump inspired working class people to violently attack their own democracy...all it took were lies and the media platforms to spread them. That kind of destructive authoritarian messaging is much easier in the digital age than it was earlier in the 20th century.
I can't say I don't disagree with this assessment.
That's not all that he said and you are likely very aware of that but chose to misrepresent Trump's words anyway.
It doesn't matter. Someone with the goal of "inciting violence" does not literally say" peaceful, patriotic".
I'm not going to go off topic but if you need an example of inciting violence, " please look up Maxine Waters". Or perhaps CNN's former Chiris Cummo.
It seems you chose to omit what he said that I quoted above. Omitting is still misrepresenting which would indicate you doing the samethingg.
The bias and religious like tendency you possess for Trump does not make your opinion on him seem objective. Perhaps more like feeling and emotions in which you allude to frequently?
It's not earth shattering that members of Congress were aware that the outgoing president was trying to find a loophole that he could use top break our democracy and seize power that he lost in an election. It's not earth shattering that a portion of the Congress was involved in that effort to undo the 2020 election results.
I say it's not earth shattering because Americans are like frogs in hot water...we just keep sitting here imagining that everything is fine because we have our media voices telling us what's important and they're not trelling us that the bad guys have come after our Constitution. We are complacent.
I think there is a variation on who considers who the bad guy. It use to be we excepted each other's diverse opinions. Now, it's heels dug in and vilification.
It looks like the Senate Minority Leader is interested in what may be revealed by the committee, particularly about who may be involved.
Quote
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he did not speak to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 6 about then-President Donald Trump's inaction as a crowd stormed the US Capitol.
The Kentucky Republican also expressed interest in what else the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol will discover, in a break with House Republican leaders who dismissed the committee's work as political.
"I was not," McConnell told CNN's Manu Raju when asked if he was in contact with Meadows and or White House officials to urge Trump to do more to stop the riot. "But I do think we're all watching, as you are, what is unfolding on the House side, and it will be interesting to reveal all the participants involved."
Why was the violence going on at the capitol? Everyone knew that was Trump's mob, including Trump. Trump didn't act fast enough for anyone concerned about the capitol or our republic. Trump incited the mob and then failed to do anything to calm that mob because he was interested in discovering what would happen if allowed to play out. He thought that members of Congress should be as upset about the election stealing a the mob was.
They were desperate for Trump to calm his crowd because it's hard to sell a riot to an audience as a protest after you've been calling other protests riots for months and months. Even they were stunned at how easily Trump inspired working class people to violently attack their own democracy...all it took were lies and the media platforms to spread them. That kind of destructive authoritarian messaging is much easier in the digital age than it was earlier in the 20th century.
It's hard to sell Jan.6 as a riot with calling the riots of 2020 "mostly peacful". And blatant refusal to call it what it is and hold these rioters accountable.
toomuchbaloney
16,029 Posts
You are maybe presuming that they can't prove that he incited them? Incitement does not have to occur only at the time of the event. Do you remember when Trump supporters decided to return to the capitol for another protest? Without Trump's incitement the crowd was small and uninspired. It was quite a contrast.