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.
Trust me, besides from Austin Texans wouldn't want your son there anyways. Perhaps San Francisco might be better for his kids so he can have them walking in feces and finding used needles everywhere they go. What are the odds without some kind of parental involvement would one of his kids be trans and one bi? Not to mention all the great income taxes he can pay.
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.
You could say that, but you would be wrong.
I have read on more than one source, including this forum, that Fox did not broadcast the first hearing. Is that incorrect?
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?
It's not my concern that many people will see it. My concern is the delivery method and its ommittion. It was broadcast during prime time,when everyone usually will be home turning on the TV. For a time it was simular to the government controlling the broadcast system. Then the information was cut. Which in my opinion was purposeful. When was the last time a Grand Jury hearing broadcasted on every major network and according to local time zones?
Is it deceptive to display media only in part and selectively remove portions that do not meet the agenda? Omitting is just as bad a deception.
I made a reference to reproductive choice to your reference of reproductive choice. When you were pin point scrutinizing my word choice of forced and associated it with what I imagine you believe is "forced pregnancy ".
But yeah, don't like the programming? Change the channel. Don't like the abortion law? , Go to another state. Difference being for a short time there were very few channels that offered anything else. There is still many states that offer abortion.
17 minutes ago, nursej22 said:
You could say that, but you would be wrong.
I have read on more than one source, including this forum, that Fox did not broadcast the first hearing. Is that incorrect?
It was the only one. So yeah, that's correct. All but 1. Out of how many?
It was the only one. So yeah, that's correct. All but 1. Out of how many?
I have no idea, and frankly, I don't care. I only watched it on one network, and that was recorded because I was with my sister in the ED. I had a choice to watch. Did you? Or were you forced?
I have no idea, and frankly, I don't care. I only watched it on one network, and that was recorded because I was with my sister in the ED. I had a choice to watch. Did you? Or were you forced?
Forced may be a strong word. Let me explain.
Even if just in the background, people have their TV's on during prime time. Prime time is when the majority of people tune in. Usually to the news. Now if every channel except one, is broadcasting the same thing, the odds are more people will see it. Then when selecting the content, like Trumps speech in which he said at the end,"peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" that was not played ,only the first part of the speech, whoch provided incomplete information. Which is deceptive. And designed so many people would hear it.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
It's not my concern that many people will see it. My concern is the delivery method and its ommittion. It was broadcast during prime time,when everyone usually will be home turning on the TV. For a time it was simular to the government controlling the broadcast system. Then the information was cut. Which in my opinion was purposeful. When was the last time a Grand Jury hearing broadcasted on every major network and according to local time zones?
Is it deceptive to display media only in part and selectively remove portions that do not meet the agenda? Omitting is just as bad a deception.
I made a reference to reproductive choice to your reference of reproductive choice. When you were pin point scrutinizing my word choice of forced and associated it with what I imagine you believe is "forced pregnancy ".
But yeah, don't like the programming? Change the channel. Don't like the abortion law? , Go to another state. Difference being for a short time there were very few channels that offered anything else. There is still many states that offer abortion.
It was the only one. So yeah, that's correct. All but 1. Out of how many?
So your current discussion about the significant and historic evidence that the 45th president used lies and abuse of power to attempt to overthrow our elected government is that it is widely available on a variety of platforms for the purpose of informing "we the people"? Your concerns about delivery and omissions from the public record are distractions from the growing mountain of evidence that Trump is a despot supported by the GOP. Let's talk about that evidence and those facts rather than quibble about what facts you imagine are getting eliminated for some nefarious purpose.
Your word choice is all we have to go on here since you provide so little in supporting citations to clarify your choice of words.
Once again you equate watching TV or pushing a button on a remote control to women making a reproductive health choice. Why can't those folks who want to live in an autocratic theocracy move to a country that has that type society rather than change this democratic republic into something else?
Yeah one cable outlet that is known for right wing bias and inaccuracy in reporting chose not to broadcast that first hearing... do you wonder why? Do you wonder why they decided to broadcast the others?
Do you think it is important for republican voting people to hear Bill Barr say that the conspiracy theories about election fraud were BS, that he told Trump that and that Ivanka believed they were false. Do you think people care that Trump personally pressured the Georgia officials and made thinly veiled threats to get the law breaking that he wanted? Do you think this Republicans were lying or that the audio tape is edited?
Besides, Trump's full speech is readily available for reading or listening pleasure. There's no excuse for people not understanding the context of his words. Laziness and ignorance are choices.
Then when selecting the content, like Trumps speech in which he said at the end,"peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" that was not played ,only the first part of the speech, whoch provided incomplete information. Which is deceptive. And designed so many people would hear it.
I find it interesting that you focus on a snippet of a speech, that is easily seen in its entirety via the internet. Are you not concerned that 20 million people heard Officer Edwards describing how she slipped in the blood of her fellow officers? Were you not concerned about videos of the crowd recounting the contents of the former president's tweets and shouting "Hang Mike Pence"?
That's the point. The videos are selectively edited as is the testimony from those that went before this Congressional school board meeting. You libs thank this is a non-partisan fair hearing where all sides are represented. You are going to lose bigly come November and Desantis will win in 2024 and then let's hear all your cries for stacking the court and eliminating the filibuster.
So your current discussion about the significant and historic evidence that the 45th president used lies and abuse of power to attempt to overthrow our elected government is that it is widely available on a variety of platforms for the purpose of informing "we the people"? Your concerns about delivery and omissions from the public record are distractions from the growing mountain of evidence that Trump is a despot supported by the GOP. Let's talk about that evidence and those facts rather than quibble about what facts you imagine are getting eliminated for some nefarious purpose.
Your word choice is all we have to go on here since you provide so little in supporting citations to clarify your choice of words.
Once again you equate watching TV or pushing a button on a remote control to women making a reproductive health choice. Why can't those folks who want to live in an autocratic theocracy move to a country that has that type society rather than change this democratic republic into something else?
Yeah one cable outlet that is known for right wing bias and inaccuracy in reporting chose not to broadcast that first hearing... do you wonder why? Do you wonder why they decided to broadcast the others?
Do you think it is important for republican voting people to hear Bill Barr say that the conspiracy theories about election fraud were BS, that he told Trump that and that Ivanka believed they were false. Do you think people care that Trump personally pressured the Georgia officials and made thinly veiled threats to get the law breaking that he wanted? Do you think this Republicans were lying or that the audio tape is edited?
Besides, Trump's full speech is readily available for reading or listening pleasure. There's no excuse for people not understanding the context of his words. Laziness and ignorance are choices.
No, people don't care. People care about gas, jobs, their retirement and getting the lib groomers out of their schools. It's 2022 time to get over it.
Of course they’re edited. So is everything out there in any medium … the only way to know if they were deceptively edited in order to distort testimony is to get into the verbatim records of the original testimony. Meanwhile, the MAGA crowd has had every chance to participate in the process and chose to grandstand for the base instead. You don’t get to “heroically” refuse seats on the commission or to testify, then whine about “partisan” hearings. Once again - put up or shut up.
5 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
No, people don't care. People care about gas, jobs, their retirement and getting the lib groomers out of their schools. It's 2022 time to get over it.
Blah blah blah … it didn’t work for Fox News and it isn’t working for you. Put up or shut up.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 minute ago, MaybeeRN said:
No, people don't care. People care about gas, jobs, their retirement and getting the lib groomers out of their schools. It's 2022 time to get over it.
You presume to speak for all Americans? If Americans are that disinterested in protecting their democratic republic from corrupt and dishonest "conservatives" then we will live in a theocratic autocracy. We are about to see what percentage of the population is willing to throw away the constitution.
By the way...I love that addition of the right wing rhetoric about "liberal groomers". It really tells us a great deal about you.
heron, ASN, RN
4,710 Posts
This makes no sense at all.