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.
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.
Yes. I think it important for everyone to hear information. In its entirety. I have to do more research about the audio. I have no doubt what they played was the truth. However I have to wonder what they didn't play. Considering they left put parts of speeches and tweets.
Presenting incomplete information is still deception.
You're right, everything they have presented to us is already on line so why have a committee at all? Why not play the media in its entirety?
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"?
Yes I was concerned. I've said so may times. And I also said they should charge Trump. What else do I have to say?
The issue is they purposely omitted the full speech while trying to get as many people as possible to hear it,with parts missing.
It doesn't matter if it was already online. Should that be the new legal strategy? Present evidence only partially because the full version is on line? Seriously?
You have to wonder why they cut it? And his tweets and who knows what else?
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.
"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.
You are the one allocating forced pregnancy and reproductive rights with my word choice. You made the initial comparison in which if I did anything simular, you would call it deflection.
"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?
Read his comment. I used the word forced, he made a comparison and comment about forced pregnancy in response to my comment.
"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?
Read his comment. I used the word forced, he made a comparison and comment about forced pregnancy in response to my comment.
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.
Blah blah blah … it didn’t work for Fox News and it isn’t working for you. Put up or shut up.
The ratings, Biden’s poll numbers, the democrats poll numbers, the amount of people changing ti Republican says otherwise. You need to stop getting your news from Twitter and tik tok.
The ratings, Biden’s poll numbers, the democrats poll numbers, the amount of people changing ti Republican says otherwise. You need to stop getting your news from Twitter and tik tok.
What, EXACTLY, makes you believe Heron has anything to do with Twitter or Tik Tok? Show me something.
What ever makes some members on here assume that others have anything to do right wing news and propaganda ?
Hmm, what could it be? Repeating the same talking points, dog-whistles like grooming, labeling posters as "libs", whinging about only showing parts of the former president's Jan 6 address?
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
Yes. I think it important for everyone to hear information. In its entirety. I have to do more research about the audio. I have no doubt what they played was the truth. However I have to wonder what they didn't play. Considering they left put parts of speeches and tweets.
Presenting incomplete information is still deception.
You're right, everything they have presented to us is already on line so why have a committee at all? Why not play the media in its entirety?
Doesn't create an ambiance of integrity.