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.
I'm not sure this is an accurate reflection. The bill you referenced, SF0128, cleared the Judiciary Committee 02/01/19 on a 3:2 vote. However, it was defeated in the Senate with an 11:18:1 vote three days later.
I'm curious, what did you hope to achieve by posting This?
It was in reply to a poster who thought that SCOTUS might use the same twisted logic that Alito used against abortion to outlaw interracial marriage. I replied that I disagreed with that, but some legislators could use that same logic to ban birth control because, in their extreme thought patterns, they believe that zygote should have personal, legal protection. In my research, I came across the article in Psychology Today written be a self-acclaimed religious man who explain why his peeps tend to think simplisticly because they don't have the ornery curiosity of the non-religious. Wyoming senators rejected the proposal to protect zygotes because legally it was a fool's erand. If you didn't read the Psychology Today because you took umbrage from the title, you missed an interesting perspective by a professional and religious man. I do not have a problem with religious people at all....until they attempt to force people to abide by their rules.
You would have to ask Trump why he spread dangerous lies about that woman and her mother. Out of all of the poll workers he could have lied about, he chose a couple of black women. Surely that's just a coincidence. Just like it's a coincidence that Trump's sycophants repeatedly implied that voting precincts with large numbers of black voters had to be challenged or considered fraud heavy.
Did I say that Trump lied about her because she was black or did I simply point out that he put her life and well being in danger by lying about her actions during the election? The facts are what they are. Trump focused the angst of his followers on that woman and her family with lies and conspiracy theory...
That was some of the testimony in today's hearing. You could listen to it while you did your evening activities.
Yes. You insinuated that Trump targeted her because she was black. And yes, it is a coincidence. If 2 white women were pulling out suite cases from under tables(found later to be doing no wrong) he would have done the exact same thing. Think he would pass it up because they were white?
I will have to listen to the same audio non edited . This committee has several times omitted audio and video, there for I cannot take anything this committee presents as the whole story.
As for the accusation that Trump alluded that voting precients with large number of black voters had to be challenged or fraud heavy, because they are black is garbage. Perhaps there were other reasons and some race baiting democrat couldn't resist mentioning the racial demographic. Apparently black voters can't even get ID so how would they manage election fraud?
The fact is you see race everywhere. You imply and suggest racism where there isn't. Do you know what that does? It causes more racism. However I guess that could be considered because it seems all democrats have left is to scream racismmmmmmmmm. Because it's effective. No body wants to be or be seen as a racist, especially white people. So in effect, this race based politics crumbles on itself. Which most ridiculous ideologies usually do. And will be evident most likely in November.
You obviously didn’t watch today’s hearing and then you feel compelled to comment on it. Trump named Ms. Freeman 18 times during his infamous call to Raffensberger, calling her a hustler and a scammer. The recorded call was played today. There are also recordings of 911 calls from Ms Freeman begging the police to come because people are banging on her door at 10 o’clock at night. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/
I'm curious, and haven't watched any of the hearings. Your accounts of what happened today seemed a bit one-sided. Can you tell us what any of these witnesses have said under cross-examination?
It was in reply to a poster who thought that SCOTUS might use the same twisted logic that Alito used against abortion to outlaw interracial marriage. I replied that I disagreed with that, but some legislators could use that same logic to ban birth control because, in their extreme thought patterns, they believe that zygote should have personal, legal protection. In my research, I came across the article in Psychology Today written be a self-acclaimed religious man who explain why his peeps tend to think simplisticly because they don't have the ornery curiosity of the non-religious. Wyoming senators rejected the proposal to protect zygotes because legally it was a fool's erand. If you didn't read the Psychology Today because you took umbrage from the title, you missed an interesting perspective by a professional and religious man. I do not have a problem with religious people at all....until they attempt to force people to abide by their rules.
You also misrepresented what the proposed law was about. And, it still sounds like you don't know. Your research must have excluded a reading of the actual bill. Chare linked to it. You might want to give it a glance.
I'm curious, and haven't watched any of the hearings. Your accounts of what happened today seemed a bit one-sided. Can you tell us what any of these witnesses have said under cross-examination?
Rather than taking a a chance of me missing an important point, I suggest you watch the hearings yourself.
Rather than taking a a chance of me missing an important point, I suggest you watch the hearings yourself.
My understanding is that there is no cross-examination.
I've heard about a lot of testimony about the capitol being stormed upon. And have heard about testimony about how Trump believed the election was stolen from him. We already knew those things, didn't we.
I thought we were going to learn about Trump and others conspired to have protestors overthrow the govt?
My understanding is that there is no cross-examination.
I've heard about a lot of testimony about the capitol being stormed upon. And have heard about testimony about how Trump believed the election was stolen from him. We already knew those things, didn't we.
I thought we were going to learn about Trump and others conspired to have protestors overthrow the govt?
It doesn't seem that I'm missing out on much.
I get the impression that you aren't really unaware that there is a difference between hearings and a trial, so I'm not sure why you would seem to be unaware that hearings don't have "cross-examinations".
You're correct that some of what's come out of the hearings were things we already knew, although what we already knew was that Trump may have broken the law or that he at least acted in a manner that makes him unfit for office.
Today's 'highlight', maybe more accurately a lowlight was that he had pressured the Arizona Speaker of the House to send fake electors to the electoral college, ie to intentionally falsify the election result. That's pretty clearly illegal, it's just a matter of what charge will be most appropriate; either obstruction of congress or the more serious conspiracy to defraud the United States. That comes later though, that's up to the Justice Department to sort out.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
11 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Yes. You insinuated that Trump targeted her because she was black. And yes, it is a coincidence. If 2 white women were pulling out suite cases from under tables(found later to be doing no wrong) he would have done the exact same thing. Think he would pass it up because they were white?
I will have to listen to the same audio non edited . This committee has several times omitted audio and video, there for I cannot take anything this committee presents as the whole story.
As for the accusation that Trump alluded that voting precients with large number of black voters had to be challenged or fraud heavy, because they are black is garbage. Perhaps there were other reasons and some race baiting democrat couldn't resist mentioning the racial demographic. Apparently black voters can't even get ID so how would they manage election fraud?
The fact is you see race everywhere. You imply and suggest racism where there isn't. Do you know what that does? It causes more racism. However I guess that could be considered because it seems all democrats have left is to scream racismmmmmmmmm. Because it's effective. No body wants to be or be seen as a racist, especially white people. So in effect, this race based politics crumbles on itself. Which most ridiculous ideologies usually do. And will be evident most likely in November.
In your opinion I targeted her because she was black... but in your opinion Trump didn't target her because she was black... your opinion is based upon your opinion of me, denial about Trump and avoidance of facts and evidence about what Trump inspired in his followers.
Yeah, I'm impressed by how you've managed to avoid listening to the audio recordings of Trump and his team pressuring Republicans to break our republic for more than a year (including avoiding the hearing) but you feel well enough informed to speak to others about what happened.
There's no reason for you to be so unaware of what that audio tape included when you can access it on the committee’s website. Should I expect that you'll dismiss that resource because Democrats are the majority in that group?
Are you implying that when people talk about or point out examples of racism that it makes white people feel more racist?
My understanding is that there is no cross-examination.
I've heard about a lot of testimony about the capitol being stormed upon. And have heard about testimony about how Trump believed the election was stolen from him. We already knew those things, didn't we.
I thought we were going to learn about Trump and others conspired to have protestors overthrow the govt?
It doesn't seem that I'm missing out on much.
That's exactly right. This is why they will not charge him. That would include cross examinations.
This is nothing more than a last ditch effort to ensure they can convince enough people not to vote for him in 2024.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
9 hours ago, Beerman said:
I'm curious, and haven't watched any of the hearings. Your accounts of what happened today seemed a bit one-sided. Can you tell us what any of these witnesses have said under cross-examination?
What cross examination? Is that the conservative complaint, that the congress isn't conducting a trial?
In your opinion I targeted her because she was black... but in your opinion Trump didn't target her because she was black... your opinion is based upon your opinion of me, denial about Trump and avoidance of facts and evidence about what Trump inspired in his followers.
Yeah, I'm impressed by how you've managed to avoid listening to the audio recordings of Trump and his team pressuring Republicans to break our republic for more than a year (including avoiding the hearing) but you feel well enough informed to speak to others about what happened.
There's no reason for you to be so unaware of what that audio tape included when you can access it on the committee’s website. Should I expect that you'll dismiss that resource because Democrats are the majority in that group?
Are you implying that when people talk about or point out examples of racism that it makes white people feel more racist?
I did not say YOU targeted her because she was black. You did insinuate that Trump did.
I wasn't just referring to "white people" I rarely ever single out by race. However you often do. What I said about white people is that they do not want to be seen as racist and will often go along with ridiculous talking points to prove they are not. All because apparently having light skin makes them racist by default. If you can imagine the racism that goes along with that.
If the best you can come up with is what you inferred Trump did was maybe,probably because she as black.......well I would expect someone soooooo racist as Trump would exhibit something more substantial than that!
I'm sorry you missed when I said Trump should be charged. I also dd listen but because this committee has several times omitted audio and video, I will not base my conclusion on only what this committee puts forth.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Just now, Justlookingfornow said:
That's exactly right. This is why they will not charge him. That would include cross examinations.
This is nothing more than a last ditch effort to ensure they can convince enough people not to vote for him in 2024.
Congress doesn't charge people with crimes and they don't run RINO hunting raids, in spite of their marketing and rhetoric. You believe what you believe because of the information and opinion that you consume. Unfortunately. It's pretty apparent from time to time that you don't consume much information that is accurately critical of Trump's efforts and actions or much information about how dangerous this dishonest dereliction of conservative values in politics really appears in the free world.
For a group of people who frequently whine about someone turning their beloved nation into a communist or socialist dictatorship to somehow be okay with an overt attempt to convert our republic to an authoritarian dictatorship is evidence of the indoctrination of the group. IMV
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,129 Posts
It was in reply to a poster who thought that SCOTUS might use the same twisted logic that Alito used against abortion to outlaw interracial marriage. I replied that I disagreed with that, but some legislators could use that same logic to ban birth control because, in their extreme thought patterns, they believe that zygote should have personal, legal protection. In my research, I came across the article in Psychology Today written be a self-acclaimed religious man who explain why his peeps tend to think simplisticly because they don't have the ornery curiosity of the non-religious. Wyoming senators rejected the proposal to protect zygotes because legally it was a fool's erand. If you didn't read the Psychology Today because you took umbrage from the title, you missed an interesting perspective by a professional and religious man. I do not have a problem with religious people at all....until they attempt to force people to abide by their rules.