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 OR, Nursing Professional Development.
A reminder from the Terms of Service:
Quote
We promote the idea of lively debate. This means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite. Additionally, please refrain from name-calling. This is divisive, rude, and derails the thread.
Our first priority is to the members that have come here because of the flame-free atmosphere we provide. There is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. We will not tolerate anyone insulting other's opinion nor name calling.
Our call is to be supportive, not divisive. Because of this, discrimination, racial vilification and offensive generalizations targeting people of other races, religions and/or nationalities, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated.
Except you're still falsely claiming that the story involves an adult and a child.
Oh. It's not an adult and a child? Well the content is perfectly acceptable then....... Silly me! My husband will be reading to my 2 year old son tonight, in drag.
The Supreme Court just showed the country that they can't be trusted to tell the truth as individuals and that there is no such thing as settled precedent.
Are you questioning the process of our democratic republic? Instilling doubt in our institutions?
They made a ruling, they didn't state any false facts.
I'm old enough to remember when Civics class was phased out of HS curriculum and thought it was silly to think Americans would be that ignorant of the criminal process, with or without a Civics class in high school.
The phase of a criminal process that we're currently in, the grand jury phase, involves no defense, that is how it has always worked.
You've proved me wrong though, I was naïve to think this is something Americans students would just figure out on their because it seemed like common knowledge.
Yes. The difference is, most grand jury proceedings do not involve forced prime time television broadcast. This Supreme Jury doesn't have any intention of providing evidence to bring charges against Trump. And this is by design.
Yes. The difference is, most grand jury proceedings do not involve forced prime time television broadcast. This Supreme Jury doesn't have any intention of providing evidence to bring charges against Trump. And this is by design.
Wait, who was forced? The networks? One witness at the sole prime time broadcast stated he was there as a result of subpoena. Do you think his video was less reliable because of that? And yes, you have posted ad nauseum that the former guy’s Jan 6 was not shown in its entirety.
I'm not sure I'm any clearer that you weren't saying the hardworking, legally immigrating Latinos vote Republican (as opposed to ?) but I'll take your word for it as I don't think that's what you meant, which is why I pointed out how it came across.
To add to your post, I don't think anyone on this thread has supported illegal immigration. Looking For Now just makes that up and applies it to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Wait, who was forced? The networks? One witness at the sole prime time broadcast stated he was there as a result of subpoena. Do you think his video was less reliable because of that? And yes, you have posted ad nauseum that the former guy’s Jan 6 was not shown in its entirety.
Well I didn't mention anything about the entirety this time. So thank you? Speaking of though, it was during this prime time broadcast that the content was not laid in its entirety. By design no doubt.
When there is nothing on during prime time but the committee hearings, then you could say most people who have their television sets on,during primetime, on major networks, then it could be less choice,not forced.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Are you questioning the process of our democratic republic? Instilling doubt in our institutions?
They made a ruling, they didn't state any false facts.
Yep, they made a ruling which undid a previous ruling that at least 3 of the justices said unequivocally (under oath) was settled precedent. Their dishonesty and inconsistency creates doubt in the institution. Your content seems an expected attempt to project some accountability into others instead of the conservative justices who are responsible for the terrible political decision.
Of course none of this is related to the topic of the corrupt attempt of Trump and his GOP sycophants to overthrow the 2020 election and install Trump as some despot authoritarian. That evidence is substantial and damming for Trump and his supporters.
To add to your post, I don't think anyone on this thread has supported illegal immigration. Looking For Now just makes that up and applies it to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I never said anyone on here "supports illegal immigration " so it's strange you would say that.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Yes. The difference is, most grand jury proceedings do not involve forced prime time television broadcast. This Supreme Jury doesn't have any intention of providing evidence to bring charges against Trump. And this is by design.
"Forced"... do you mean as in making someone do something that they don't want to do, like carry an unwanted pregnancy to term regardless of the health or economic risks and costs? That kind of forced?
Our maybe that was hyperbole since you don't have any evidence that any media outlet was forced to publish the hearings.
"Forced"... do you mean as in making someone do something that they don't want to do, like carry an unwanted pregnancy to term regardless of the health or economic risks and costs? That kind of forced?
Our maybe that was hyperbole since you don't have any evidence that any media outlet was forced to publish the hearings.
Oh. I'm sorry. Should I have said, "less choice"? Does that make it better? Or are you happy to microscopically examine words because there is really nothing else to say?
I didn't say there was any news channels forced to broadcast ! I said there was prime time broadcasting designed to reach as may people as possible. Almost every channel. You could infere this was by design. Especially with cut footage.
Besides, no one is forced to watch a certain channel,they can find a channel of their choice. You know like find a state that will allow you to choose to abort your pregnancy. Go to a different channel, or go to a different state.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Oh. I'm sorry. Should I have said, "less choice"? Does that make it better? Or are you happy to microscopically examine words because there is really nothing else to say?
I didn't say there was any news channels forced to broadcast ! I said there was prime time broadcasting designed to reach as may people as possible. Almost every channel. You could infere this was by design. Especially with cut footage.
Besides, no one is forced to watch a certain channel,they can find a channel of their choice. You know like find a state that will allow you to choose to abort your pregnancy. Go to a different channel, or go to a different state.
You should just say what you mean. You used the word forced... that was your remark... but apparently you don't feel now that you chose the correct word. OK
You seem surprised that the Select Committee is trying to publish this evidence to the largest possible audience. Why does this concern you, isn't that how media coverage works? Doesn't Trump have a large audience for his lies and misinformation? You seem very suspicious of nefarious intent for lots of people who aren't Trump or republican.
Yes people have the freedom to choose the media content they prefer to consume. Are you equating watching TV with pregnancy and childbirth or reproductive healthcare choices?
Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN
6 Articles; 12,057 Posts
A reminder from the Terms of Service:
Please be sure to consider the TOS when posting.