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.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
8 hours ago, Beerman said:
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.
The people who are watching the hearing are learning about Trump and others conspiring to overthrow the election results in 2020. You aren't watching and learning about that as you admitted. You've formed strong opinions about the subject without accessing all of the available information (intentional avoidance of some information it appears). That suggests that your opinion is primarily based in other opinion that denies Trump's culpability.
You are missing out on the most important congressional hearing of your lifetime...much more important than Watergate. I guess your pundits are telling you it's unimportant but it's too important to fully ignore it, AEB the members here who are dismissive of the hearing while also avoiding any of the presented facts or evidence. This is like talking about a controversial book with someone who hasn't read the book but their uncle Tony told them about a similar book years ago and so now they don't open books but they have opinions about what's in THAT book that they haven't read or listened to on audio.
10 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Yes it is! Charge him. Let him have his day in court. It won't happen because of "old white man" something or other.....
You should just contact the DOJ and let them know that you (a person who isn't familiar with all of the facts or evidence) demands that they charge the former president ASAP.
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
I know congress doesn't charge people. However, surely if there was a crime committed, the DOJ will chage him? Or already charge him? Either way it looks disingenuous. Normal everyday people do not care who or what bring charges against someone. They do however notice that there is nil defence in these proceedings.
Yeah,yeah..... conservatives are a bunch of constitutional insurectionist.... Even though most conservative justices are originalist.
You are correct. I have listened to the committee which means I have not listened to accurate critique of Trump! When info is edited, misrepresented and cut from its entirety, I tend not to make my conclusions until I get more information.
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.
Of course, a trial isn't needed for a cross-examination. Others have said "hearings don't have cross-exsminations". That doesn't mean they can't. There isn't any kind of rule against them, as far as I know.
That would be the best way to get the most information and get to the truth. That's why we do have them in legal precedings.
It would also make the committee appear less biased.
But, getting to the truth isn't the purpose of these hearings. It's to get the Trump-haters frothing at the mouth, once again, so that they donate money and show up for midterms.
And, as you said, to do damage to Trump. In that case, they better be careful what they wish for. Unless Biden were to run again, and no way that's going to happen, I don't think Trump would win in 2024.
Of course, a trial isn't needed for a cross-examination. Others have said "hearings don't have cross-exsminations". That doesn't mean they can't. There isn't any kind of rule against them, as far as I know.
That would be the best way to get the most information and get to the truth. That's why we do have them in legal precedings.
It would also make the committee appear less biased.
But, getting to the truth isn't the purpose of these hearings. It's to get the Trump-haters frothing at the mouth, once again, so that they donate money and show up for midterms.
And, as you said, to do damage to Trump. In that case, they better be careful what they wish for. Unless Biden were to run again, and no way that's going to happen, I don't think Trump would win in 2024.
If Trump goes for 2024 with Biden, he'll win.
General everyday people see this as a one sided show with no defence.people think in fairness, this committee is not. I hope they do charge him, then we can see the whole picture but that's not the purpose of this.
The people who are watching the hearing are learning about Trump and others conspiring to overthrow the election results in 2020. You aren't watching and learning about that as you admitted. You've formed strong opinions about the subject without accessing all of the available information (intentional avoidance of some information it appears). That suggests that your opinion is primarily based in other opinion that denies Trump's culpability.
You are missing out on the most important congressional hearing of your lifetime...much more important than Watergate. I guess your pundits are telling you it's unimportant but it's too important to fully ignore it, AEB the members here who are dismissive of the hearing while also avoiding any of the presented facts or evidence. This is like talking about a controversial book with someone who hasn't read the book but their uncle Tony told them about a similar book years ago and so now they don't open books but they have opinions about what's in THAT book that they haven't read or listened to on audio.
You should just contact the DOJ and let them know that you (a person who isn't familiar with all of the facts or evidence) demands that they charge the former president ASAP.
Will do. Perhaps you can call the committee with your self appointed superior political knowledge and completly non bias "facts" and help them out.... because they need it.
The people who are watching the hearing are learning about Trump and others conspiring to overthrow the election results in 2020. You aren't watching and learning about that as you admitted. You've formed strong opinions about the subject without accessing all of the available information (intentional avoidance of some information it appears). That suggests that your opinion is primarily based in other opinion that denies Trump's culpability.
You are missing out on the most important congressional hearing of your lifetime...much more important than Watergate. I guess your pundits are telling you it's unimportant but it's too important to fully ignore it, AEB the members here who are dismissive of the hearing while also avoiding any of the presented facts or evidence. This is like talking about a controversial book with someone who hasn't read the book but their uncle Tony told them about a similar book years ago and so now they don't open books but they have opinions about what's in THAT book that they haven't read or listened to on audio.
You should just contact the DOJ and let them know that you (a person who isn't familiar with all of the facts or evidence) demands that they charge the former president ASAP.
Also, I make my opinions based on several sources I haven't researched everything yet. Did I say he was innocent of everything? Did I not say he acted shamefully? More than you "Biden is too old"..
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
If Trump goes for 2024 with Biden, he'll win.
General everyday people see this as a one sided show with no defence.people think in fairness, this committee is not. I hope they do charge him, then we can see the whole picture but that's not the purpose of this.
Trump didn't win in 2020 against Biden and since 2020 Trump has made himself look more like a dishonorable man with no qualms about lying, cheating or breaking the Republic to benefit himself. But sure, his supporters are certain that he could win another free and fair election after he lost the popular vote in back to back contests. SMH
I only wish that Meadows and Bannon and Navarro (et al) would just honor the congressional subpoenas and tell their side of the story under oath. They won't have a choice if Trump is charged criminally. They will be compelled to testify or go to jail.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
10 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Also, I make my opinions based on several sources I haven't researched everything yet. Did I say he was innocent of everything? Did I not say he acted shamefully? More than you "Biden is too old"..
What are your sources for facts about the information that these hearings are sharing with the public? Where are you "researching" this information? The Committee conducted thousands of hours of interviews and reviewed thousands of documents. What research have you done that causes you to immediately question and diminish the Committee’s findings as they are presented? Is it possible that the sources that you are utilizing are biased?
37 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Will do. Perhaps you can call the committee with your self appointed superior political knowledge and completly non bias "facts" and help them out.... because they need it.
That's sort of a nonsensical projection. I'm not the person making statements about what the committee should or shouldn't do. I'm commenting on the facts, evidence and testimony with some opinion of those things thrown in. Am I wrong in my understanding that you aren't watching or listening to these hearings. Are you watching snippets selected by commentators?
How do you assess the Committee’s attention to facts when you aren't listening to or watching their presentation and comparing that to publicly known facts and evidence? Are you depending upon an analysis of the hearings? Which analysts or commentators or writers are informing you?
What are your sources for facts about the information that these hearings are sharing with the public? Where are you "researching" this information? The Committee conducted thousands of hours of interviews and reviewed thousands of documents. What research have you done that causes you to immediately question and diminish the Committee’s findings as they are presented? Is it possible that the sources that you are utilizing are biased?
That's sort of a nonsensical projection. I'm not the person making statements about what the committee should or shouldn't do. I'm commenting on the facts, evidence and testimony with some opinion of those things thrown in. Am I wrong in my understanding that you aren't watching or listening to these hearings. Are you watching snippets selected by commentators?
How do you assess the Committee’s attention to facts when you aren't listening to or watching their presentation and comparing that to publicly known facts and evidence? Are you depending upon an analysis of the hearings? Which analysts or commentators or writers are informing you?
I didn't say I have come to a conclusion yet. I have not researched it yet. When I do,I'll let you know. I did listen and watch everything so far. I feel they should charge him.
I find that in the first day of this committee they omitted part of Trumps speech on Jan. 6 and omitted parts of his tweets. In the very first day. It doesn't make me super confident anything following this would be any different.
However, a panel of Democrats and 2 Republicans who have been very vocal about their dislike for Trump can hardly be considered non partisan LOL.
Trump didn't win in 2020 against Biden and since 2020 Trump has made himself look more like a dishonorable man with no qualms about lying, cheating or breaking the Republic to benefit himself. But sure, his supporters are certain that he could win another free and fair election after he lost the popular vote in back to back contests. SMH
I only wish that Meadows and Bannon and Navarro (et al) would just honor the congressional subpoenas and tell their side of the story under oath. They won't have a choice if Trump is charged criminally. They will be compelled to testify or go to jail.
The popular vote doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Until then, it's just a popularity contest. Democrats in a huff to try and end the electoral college because of their poor prospects.
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
Yes it is! Charge him. Let him have his day in court. It won't happen because of "old white man" something or other.....