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.
10 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
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.
Yes... and if you watched the hearings you might wonder if Trump and other Republicans weren't trying to corrupt that electoral college to install Trump as some kind of extra-constitutional president. Nope, instead of talking about the findings of the Committee I guess we'll tolerate sophomoric political rhetoric when confronted with historic facts.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
17 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
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.
That partisan part is most important to you it seems. What do you think about the possibility that members of congress were trying to facilitate this electoral college plan?
Yes... and if you watched the hearings you might wonder if Trump and other Republicans weren't trying to corrupt that electoral college to install Trump as some kind of extra-constitutional president. Nope, instead of talking about the findings of the Committee I guess we'll tolerate sophomoric political rhetoric when confronted with historic facts.
You can go ahead with your already precieved conclusion.
I prefer to evaluate information from various sources. Especially when one demonstrates bias and omits information.
That partisan part is most important to you it seems. What do you think about the possibility that members of congress were trying to facilitate this electoral college plan?
It is partisan. Any genuine person can see this. I think that the DOJ should charge anyone who committed a crime and hold them accountable and allow them a defence as they are invited to under the constitution. Is that some "right wing extremist" idea determined to "undo our democratic republic"? A movement?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
You can go ahead with your already precieved conclusion.
I prefer to evaluate information from various sources. Especially when one demonstrates bias and omits information.
My preconceived notions? I'm not the one suggesting that Trump should be indicted without a DOJ inquiry simply because congress held an investigation of something.
Let's talk about the testimony that was heard yesterday. How widespread was the political pressure do you think? Do you think there were other state level Republicans who were going along with the plan to undo the election results?
Yes. I meant to follow up with that tweet you refereced. I did not think he said he caused it rather that he referred to "why it happened I'm paraphrasing but something like, "this is what happens when a landslide win is unjustly stolen....." or something like that. Then went on to say "go home in love and peace ". I guess it can be interpreted loosely as an admission but I don't think so. Definitely not enough for any substantial incriminating evidence.
He said that "these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long".
The second portion of that sentence is a false claim he made up to attempt to fraudulently alter the result of an election, even his own lawyers have admitted that his claims have no supporting evidence in multiple court cases.
So what he said was this is what happens when someone does what I did. That's the opposite of saying that what happened wasn't what he intended or expected.
He said that "these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long".
The second portion of that sentence is a false claim he made up to attempt to fraudulently alter the result of an election, even his own lawyers have admitted that his claims have no supporting evidence in multiple court cases.
So what he said was this is what happens when someone does what I did. That's the opposite of saying that what happened wasn't what he intended or expected.
And just like the Jan.6 committee ,you omitted the last part of his tweet.....
There is noting in that statement that says,"I did this". Besides,when exactly did he make this tweet? Before the violent part of the protest? During? After? The one speech that committee cut short wasn't even finished when the violence started. You know the one where he said, "peacefully and patriotcally make ypur voices heard"?
Sorry. Charge him or stop wasting citizens time and money,just another impeachment Russian collusion smoke show. How could the worse than 9/11, and Pearl Harbour not result in any charges by the DOJ? That would be like not charging a 9/11 terrorists if they were alive. LOL
There is barely anybody even paying attention to this anymore. Low ratings and increased ratings for Trump.
There is barely anybody even paying attention to this anymore. Low ratings and increased ratings for Trump.
According to one source, there were 5 million viewers on June 21 between MSNBC and CNN. Not bad for midday during the week. This is not barely anybody.
What difference does it make if only excerpts were shown during the first hearing? It served as an intro, so of like an abstract on a paper. His entire speech is easily located, for those masochists who want to listen to that “short-fingered vulgarian.”
And just like the Jan.6 committee ,you omitted the last part of his tweet.....
There is noting in that statement that says,"I did this". Besides,when exactly did he make this tweet? Before the violent part of the protest? During? After? The one speech that committee cut short wasn't even finished when the violence started. You know the one where he said, "peacefully and patriotcally make ypur voices heard"?
Sorry. Charge him or stop wasting citizens time and money,just another impeachment Russian collusion smoke show. How could the worse than 9/11, and Pearl Harbour not result in any charges by the DOJ? That would be like not charging a 9/11 terrorists if they were alive. LOL
There is barely anybody even paying attention to this anymore. Low ratings and increased ratings for Trump.
The last part of the that tweet doesn't change the meaning or context of the incriminating part which is probably why it often isn't included.
Those charged in the riot of Jan 6th have consistently testified that they did what they did because Trump had made it clear that what needed to happen was for the electoral college vote to be obstructed. You could maybe argue there was surprising consistency in his follower's confusion, except for the fact that he had made various statements expressing exactly that prior to January 6th.
In cases where crimes were possibly committed by those in high office, this is the process that occurs prior to bringing charges.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Remember these are mostly REPUBLICANS who are providing testimony under oath. Video testimony presented is often from Trumps own appointed staff, with pertanent parts of their testimony pertaining to "stolen election" shown. Entire conversations are archived at Library of Congress and will be released post completion of hearing, and accessible to public, per usual committee hearings. CSPAN has hearings online with written transcript now.
Remember these are mostly REPUBLICANS who are providing testimony under oath. Video testimony presented is often from Trumps own appointed staff, with pertanent parts of their testimony pertaining to "stolen election" shown. Entire conversations are archived at Library of Congress and will be released post completion of hearing, and accessible to public, per usual committee hearings. CSPAN has hearings online with written transcript now.
Yes and if there was a cross exam, the same Republicans would be questioned. Have you not seen a trial where the prosecution's witness does bad with the defence questioning and then the prosecution then does a redirect?
I know, I know, this isn't the same as a criminal trial, perfect! By design.
And Beerman made a good point, there doesn't seem to be a law against cross exam.
The last part of the that tweet doesn't change the meaning or context of the incriminating part which is probably why it often isn't included.
Those charged in the riot of Jan 6th have consistently testified that they did what they did because Trump had made it clear that what needed to happen was for the electoral college vote to be obstructed. You could maybe argue there was surprising consistency in his follower's confusion, except for the fact that he had made various statements expressing exactly that prior to January 6th.
In cases where crimes were possibly committed by those in high office, this is the process that occurs prior to bringing charges.
No. Trump has done allot of incriminating things but this is pretty far fetched. He said this is what happens when people feel there's an injustice, you know, just like BLM riots. Except he told them to go home in peace and love, not call it a Summer of love. Like the autonomous zone chop or Chaz complete with its own boarder patrol, militant policing and rapes and murders. Of POC no less. In the US! Ha. Ridiculous!
Yes, this is what happens before criminal charges are brought up. However we all know this won't happen, even if they could. That would mean a defence and that's is not what these committee members want. They want to spout off their one sided BS without any push back.
Right, we can see all this on-line with his entire speech. The FBI already said there was no evidence of prior planning. Yet we are here.......
toomuchbaloney
16,056 Posts
Yes... and if you watched the hearings you might wonder if Trump and other Republicans weren't trying to corrupt that electoral college to install Trump as some kind of extra-constitutional president. Nope, instead of talking about the findings of the Committee I guess we'll tolerate sophomoric political rhetoric when confronted with historic facts.