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.
Yet you didn’t vote for McCain for President. Neither did any of the other liberals on here. So spare us the McCain virtue signaling. What does "virtue signaling" John McCain mean?
How do you know I voted for? I would have considered him because he was an outstanding human being even though I didn't agree with all of his position. I didn't know much about Obama. But having Sarah Palin as a running mate was a deal breaker for me. I don't know
Because they are insinuating that the rest of the inmates are black. Typical class racism by liberals.
Well that's what I thought but didn't want to say it. They also think black people are too inept to get photo ID apparently or as Biden said, can't use the internet. Mkay....
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
40 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Well that's what I thought but didn't want to say it. They also think black people are too inept to get photo ID apparently or as Biden said, can't use the internet. Mkay....
Except that none of what you just posted amounts to anything more than your poorly informed opinion...as stimulated by the right wing media that you consume. Try sharing facts for discussion for a change...
Except that none of what you just posted amounts to anything more than your poorly informed opinion...as stimulated by the right wing media that you consume. Try sharing facts for discussion for a change...
Except it does.
It is regrettable that your left wing media has stimulated you into a radical frenzy to what you now believe about all Republicans, not just Trump, and how they are a danger to our democratic Republic.... And that your media has fooled you into believing that they are not doing to you what they say the right is doing to conservatives.
Masters of propaganda!
See? I can attack your media sources too. However I prefer not to because it is a weak argument, even worse than deflection.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
12 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Except it does.
It is regrettable that your left wing media has stimulated you into a radical frenzy to what you now believe about all Republicans, not just Trump, and how they are a danger to our democratic Republic.... And that your media has fooled you into believing that they are not doing to you what they say the right is doing to conservatives.
Masters of propaganda!
See? I can attack your media sources too. However I prefer not to because it is a weak argument, even worse than deflection.
You should try to provide some substantiation for the inflammatory opinions you share. It seems that you have nothing of substance to support your views. It's difficult to take your rhetorical questions and hyperbolic "what ifs" seriously or to actually engage in a debate over a topic when you offer nothing to discuss beyond your opinion. At least I give you the opportunity to simply mock and ignore what I cite.
You should try to provide some substantiation for the inflammatory opinions you share. It seems that you have nothing of substance to support your views. It's difficult to take your rhetorical questions and hyperbolic "what ifs" seriously or to actually engage in a debate over a topic when you offer nothing to discuss beyond your opinion. At least I give you the opportunity to simply mock and ignore what I cite.
It's difficult to read your post when all you talk about is the republican party, not just Trump hell bent of "tearing down our democracy". Making the insinuation that being Republican makes one complicit in "undoing our republic" because "it isn't just Trump anymore" Then accuse everyone else of hyperbole while simultaneously suggesting the very half our democratic republic is some how a threat to our constitution. Probably to convince as many people as possible so they vote in a certain way
What you cite is mostly opinion in which you present as facts in the absolute, and highly slanted to the left. Anything you cite I can refute with another highly slanted media source. There for I prefer to state my opinions and explain why they arewhat they are. I subscribe to WAPO, I watch news media slanted both ways. What I find is partisan garbage and in my opinion because of the state of our media, there is no longer true objective journalism. Media sources have always been bias to a political side but the fact they suggest that they are not, and only reporting the facts, separates them from the original media reporting of the past.
Media has become and extention of the political party and some are more like activist. Due to this I make my own opinions and I'm sorry I cannot reference every single thing I have read and seen out of my brain.
The difference is, I usually always say "in my opinion" and accept that my opinion isn't the end all be all and have the ability to change my mind. The way you present yourself is that you are the decider and chief of all media quality and you have the ability to decide what is true or not true. Almost every reply is a derogatory reference to someone's "media source", "right wing rhetoric......" " strawman....".
If you are really concerned for our democratic republic, do you not think perhaps changing your insulting way of communication while trying to assert you ideals would have a better effect if you were at least respectful?
I'm telling you right now, your approach is is not effective. It only serves to make people dig their heels in deeper and is probably a determent to your cause. Even members of the same political side have made a point. I've seen you do the same thing to them when you disagree with what they say. What is it you are trying to accomplish by behaving that way?
This has derailed, and I'm sure we are both violating TOS so go-ahead with you usual rebuttal and we both need to move on.
I haven't had that opportunity to watch the recent committee hearings.
Is there anything new or an more evidence that Trump conspired for a riot? I heard one committee member say criminal charges most likely not happening then Cheney contradicting that. I hope they do charge him. That way we can see in a criminal court what his defence is.
So far they have been sucessful in demonstrating Trump's disgraceful behavior, his egotistical mind not allowing him to accept loss and Giuliani fed the fire and was drunk.
1 minute ago, Justlookingfornow said:
I haven't had that opportunity to watch the recent committee hearings.
Is there anything new or an more evidence that Trump conspired for a riot? I heard one committee member say criminal charges most likely not happening then Cheney contradicting that. I hope they do charge him. That way we can see in a criminal court what his defence is.
So far they have been sucessful in demonstrating Trump's disgraceful behavior, his egotistical mind not allowing him to accept loss and Giuliani fed the fire and was drunk.
I don't think there's evidence that he "conspired for a riot". But what is very clear is that almost all of his appointees, advisors (except Giuliani) and even his own daughter tried to tell him the election was legitimate and yet and he persisted with the lie, and put tremendous pressure on Pence, thus causing the "stop the steal" protest in the first place. To me this is his unforgivable action. This is what is loud and clear.
To this day the lie is so entrenched and even politicians are winning elections supporting this lie.
The lie was so entrenched that he was able to raise 250 million dollars to a fund that didn't exist. (We've talked about this already)
When people are duped, it's quite difficult for them to back up and say "hey I've been duped and Trump lost the election", they continue to believe in the lie. Shaking my head.
Specializes in CNA telemetry progressive care ICU.
Quick fact check same scare tactics to utilize government contributions for personal reasons was done by Sheriff Arpio during his reign he sent out countless memos and was petitioning door to door to impeach a President Obama that his citizenship was questionable to raise this sizeable amount of money to send his “Posse” to Hawaii to dig up dirt on Obama when in fact they went to Hawaii never found any evidence of so called birth certificate and were taking vacations and buying ladies of the night all on taxpayers money ?
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,125 Posts
Who is "they"? One is either racist or classist. Do you mean to say that "liberals" are both?