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.
The Select Committee is calling a surprise hearing tomorrow. The subject is unknown. New evidence or someone is complying with a subpoena? Alas, not during prime time so it likely won't be a truncated speech from the former guy forced on the American Public.
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?
Oh I'm sorry. I did none of that. You must be confused. I never said grooming or libs but I did mention showing only parts of the former president's speeches and tweets. Because they omitted the full speech and tweet.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
8 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
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.
You don't have to do more research on the Georgia audio tape, it was linked in this thread in its entirety for your listening pleasure. You don't have to wonder what was left out of the speeches or tweets, that information is public information and many of us experienced all of that first hand in a they occurred. None of that is a mystery.
I find it pretty extreme to somehow believe that all irrelevant detail or content must be included in order for one to accept the evidence and facts that ARE relevant to the events and investigation. That's a big bite for people who are reluctant to even consume the prime time version, intentionally kept under 2 hours.
No, not everything that they've presented is online. None of the sworn testimony or depositions were available.
Why have a committee at all? Are you serious with that? There was a free and fair election and the former president refused to accept the vote results, repeatedly lied about the security of the election, raised $250 million on those lies apparently while breaking laws (again). Then, after his inflammatory rally, a mob violently attacked the capitol and stopped the counting of the vote. Why have a committee at all?
Thousands of hours of depositions and interviews, that's why they don't play it all. Trump’s tag team pressured Raffensberger for more than an hour on the audio tape. It's not good time management to play an hours worth of old news in prime time, that seems self evident. Why haven't you listened to that tape before now so that it's not acceptable to hear just an excerpt during the hearing?
The lack of integrity that is really concerning is that of the previous president, his chief of staff and his "republican congressmen". IMV
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.
I never said it was a child and an adult BTW.
You posted an article that claimed this was a description of pedophilia, that's what pedophilia means, an adult and a child.
I would post examples from pride parades but I'm sure nudity and sexual gratification are against the TOS.
So who is the jury that decides on the indictment? Who are the citizens sitting inside the hearing that will indict anyone? Grand juries are the purview of the justice department. Wanna try again?
Grand Juries of acts committed by the Executive branch are not the purview of the Justice Department.
Again, this is basic HS Civics, our federal government is based on a system of checks and balances which is why oversight of the executive branch is the purview of the Legislative and Judicial branches. The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch.
Grand Juries of acts committed by the Executive branch are not the purview of the Justice Department.
Again, this is basic HS Civics, our federal government is based on a system of checks and balances which is why oversight of the executive branch is the purview of the Legislative and Judicial branches. The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch.
Oversight is not the same as a grand jury. This in no way resembles a grand jury I know from experience.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:
Oversight is not the same as a grand jury. This in no way resembles a grand jury I know from experience.
LOL
Duh... he's been trying to explain to your friend why there isn't cross examinations and other silly things. We all know that you guys know what these hearings are and why they are set up like this. It's just the expected complaints on process rather than substance that we saw during the impeachments. Distraction and deflection are effective ways to avoid discussion of the facts that indicate that Trump attempted to overthrow our government after he lost power.
There's an unexpected hearing today, will you watch?
Duh... he's been trying to explain to your friend why there isn't cross examinations and other silly things. We all know that you guys know what these hearings are and why they are set up like this. It's just the expected complaints on process rather than substance that we saw during the impeachments. Distraction and deflection are effective ways to avoid discussion of the facts that indicate that Trump attempted to overthrow our government after he lost power.
There's an unexpected hearing today, will you watch?
nursej22, MSN, RN
4,854 Posts
The Select Committee is calling a surprise hearing tomorrow. The subject is unknown. New evidence or someone is complying with a subpoena? Alas, not during prime time so it likely won't be a truncated speech from the former guy forced on the American Public.