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.
Obviously, that they were the leader of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government.
Probably think the same about illegal protesters harassing justices outside their homes and an attempted plot to kill one. If it happened "in their home".
I heard an interesting (to me, at least) theory about the description of Mark Meadows conversation during the president's Jan 6 speech. His aide, Ms. Hutchinson, described him in a car during a speech, and refused to talk to her at least twice when she had urgent information for him. The theory proposed was that he was in communication with the "War Room" group meeting at the Willard Hotel.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Do you know thatvall people will not have the same adverse effects that are written in our drug references?
Nice try. You just made up some ridiculous theory about why it was more likely that this hearsay evidence should have more credibility.
In reality you have no idea about any medications he was or was not taking. Nor do you have any clinical proof he was having a side effect of said medication you think he might have beenbtaking. LOL
You sound like the fantastical conspiracy theorist you so often put down. Does this have to do with your social media, far left radical propaganda or your emotions?
And I did not deny his corruption or evidence of such.I said it sounds like they could charge him! I literally said to charge Trump with a crime.
This is reflective of what this committee real intentions are as well as yours. And it is not the truth or justice.
LOL... since I don't make any claims about all people your comment is irrelevant. It's fine with me if you'd rather believe that Trump was simply inappropriate and rage prone as a baseline rather than excuse it as a medication side effect.
Maybe all of the evidence of corruption running deep and wide through republican politics in the era of Trump is making you feel defensive and uncomfortable.
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
2 hours ago, Beerman said:
Now we have a president who likely suffered some brain damage from aneuryisms over 30 years ago and is now 79, forgets names, introduces others as the president, and needs note cards to tell him when to sit down. Have you evaluated his fitness for office?
Did you learn Trump wanted magnometers removed, or did you learn someone thinks they overheard him say that?
What kind of information do you think some sort of cross examination might have revealed? For example, police audio was played describing men walking down the street carrying AR15's. My instant reaction was, "OK, and then?" I mean, that is illegal in DC, and at least suspicious. Were these men questioned, arrested, or did it turn out to be not true?
And, then there is all the heresay...
Nothing but a Democrat fundraising show trial.
What kind of information do you think some sort of cross examination might have revealed?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Right. Because no nurse ever has been assulted by a violent elderly patient right? If fact SOB in itself can cause people to physically act out.
But yes, let's keep talking about a silly theory about the former President's possible medical status on Jan.6. Made up by a member on this site.....
Again, it's fine if we don't consider that Trump's unacceptable an be inappropriate fits of rage and agitated delusion are secondary to medication... It’s most likely just his long term disqualifying character flaws.
You wanna hear a silly theory? Here's one... if the president loses an election then the vice president can just toss out the vote results and demand different electors. Let's talk about that theory because that theory was accompanied by violence and threats of violence on behalf of Trump.
I heard an interesting (to me, at least) theory about the description of Mark Meadows conversation during the president's Jan 6 speech. His aide, Ms. Hutchinson, described him in a car during a speech, and refused to talk to her at least twice when she had urgent information for him. The theory proposed was that he was in communication with the "War Room" group meeting at the Willard Hotel.
It sounds like the Secret Service and others are about to blow apart her Trump tried to hijack the limo story.
So, while you can, have fun with all your little theories you can come up with from her untrustworthy testimony.
LOL... since I don't make any claims about all people your comment is irrelevant. It's fine with me if you'd rather believe that Trump was simply inappropriate and rage prone as a baseline rather than excuse it as a medication side effect.
Maybe all of the evidence of corruption running deep and wide through republican politics in the era of Trump is making you feel defensive and uncomfortable.
I said that it looks like he may have committed a crime and should be charged. All without your made up story about steroids.
Again, it's fine if we don't consider that Trump's unacceptable an be inappropriate fits of rage and agitated delusion are secondary to medication... It’s most likely just his long term disqualifying character flaws.
You wanna hear a silly theory? Here's one... if the president loses an election then the vice president can just toss out the vote results and demand different electors. Let's talk about that theory because that theory was accompanied by violence and threats of violence on behalf of Trump.
You want to hear a silly theory? The Forman POTUS may have committed a crime during the worse thing since Pearl Harbour and 9/11 and yet there will be no charges!
And that there will be gay sex bans and a black Justice will attempt to outlaw interracial marriage when he is married to a white woman!
Oh,and Trump may have or may have not been on steroids. LOL lo
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
Probably think the same about illegal protesters harassing justices outside their homes and an attempted plot to kill one. If it happened "in their home".