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.
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
I'm not a weakling that can't handle opposition from anonymous people on the internet.
What "case"? LOL
There isn't one.
I agree, you have no case. Nothing but empty assertions with no reasoning or evidence in support. Seems like if you are the fearless online spokesperson for a particular point of view, you’d be able to produce something besides rote repetition
So far, Trump was really mad, threw his lunch at the wall and may have been on steroids! LOL.
You don't find it concerning that Mr. Trump couldn't control his temper and threw his plate across the room? Did you find it concerning when Mr. Biden apparently couldn't control his temper after a press conference, and in a hot mic moment referred to Mr. Doocy as a stupid son of a *****?
I know that I find both concerning as neither should have allowed themselves to respond so childishly, regardless of how provoked they thought they might have been.
I dunno … it seems to me that testimony given under oath and against her own self-interest is a bit more credible than you obviously want to admit.
No, you dunno.
Testimony that wouldn't be allowed in court as it was heresay.
The Secret Service has said they'll come to the hearing and respond. The WH aide who supposedly witnessed this event and told the story to Hutchinson is reportedly telling people it didn't happen.
So, will the committee invite the Secret Service agent and WH aide so that we get the truth (that's the real purpose of this committee, right? LOL) even if it discredits their surprise star witness?
Testimony that wouldn't be allowed in court as it was heresay.
The Secret Service has said they'll come to the hearing and respond. The WH aide who supposedly witnessed this event and told the story to Hutchinson is reportedly telling people it didn't happen.
So, will the committee subpoena the Secret Service agent and WH aide so that we get the truth (that's the real purpose of this committee. right? LOL) even if it discredits their surprise star witness?
Who wants to take bets?
Are you aware that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule? I think her testimony might meet the criteria. The question is moot, however, since this isn’t a trial, just curious. I agree, let’s get them under oath and see what they say when there are consequences for lying.
I’m also not sure that the accuracy or lack of it changes the emerging narrative of events, which kind of makes your suggestion more of a wasteful distraction than anything else.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
I said that it looks like he may have committed a crime and should be charged. All without your made up story about steroids.
I'm not uncomfortable at all. Thanks for asking.
Your wild extrapolation and broad hyperbole rather than thoughtful discussion of the evidence leaves an impression of distress. Shrugs
Again, it's fine to just associate that unacceptable behavior with Trump's deep and disqualifying character flaws that his voting base deny and dismiss. His cabinet thought he was dangerously disconnected from reality and considered the 25th amendment. That means that the GOP has a crazy guy wanting to be president again and the party leadership is cool with that. We really only expect country before party patriots to be interested in this investigation... certainly not the folks that want to again elevate the dangerous liar that endangers our republic.
Are you aware that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule? I think her testimony might meet the criteria. The question is moot, however, since this isn’t a trial, just curious. I agree, let’s get them under oath and see what they say when there are consequences for lying.
I’m also not sure that the accuracy or lack of it changes the emerging narrative of events, which kind of makes your suggestion more of a wasteful distraction than anything else.
The liberal media and their followers, including some here, were all giddy about a surprise hearing. And then what was described as the "most explosive revelation" of that hearing, it seems, is turning out to be untrue.
Pointing that out is a "wasteful distraction"? OK...LOL
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
20 minutes ago, Beerman said:
No, you dunno.
Testimony that wouldn't be allowed in court as it was heresay.
The Secret Service has said they'll come to the hearing and respond. The WH aide who supposedly witnessed this event and told the story to Hutchinson is reportedly telling people it didn't happen.
So, will the committee invite the Secret Service agent and WH aide so that we get the truth (that's the real purpose of this committee, right? LOL) even if it discredits their surprise star witness?
Who wants to take bets?
If you had watched the hearing you would be aware that there was a public invitation to those folks. They are welcome to come Testify under oath.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
5 minutes ago, Beerman said:
The liberal media and their followers, including some here, were all giddy about a surprise hearing. And then what was described as the "most explosive revelation" of that hearing, it seems, is turning out to be untrue.
Pointing that out is a "wasteful distraction"? OK...LOL
In your opinion it isn't shocking news to hear that; the former president knew that there were armed individuals among "his people", that the president was confident that the armed people weren't going to hurt him, that the chief of staff and other advisors seemed to be unconcerned about the report of weapons and a threat of violence, that the president was so agitated and emotional that he was throwing things and behaving in a combative fashion... all while he had expert counsel that what he was attempting and planning and asking if people was dishonest, illegal and dangerous.
It's amusing that all you have is some casual words, not spoken on the record or under oath and those words convince you that the investigation into the attempt by a former president to break our republic to retain lost power is nothing... untrue...
The liberal media and their followers, including some here, were all giddy about a surprise hearing. And then what was described as the "most explosive revelation" of that hearing, it seems, is turning out to be untrue.
Pointing that out is a "wasteful distraction"? OK...LOL
No … the process of getting the workers in question before the committee is likely to be expensive and would be wasteful if it doesn’t materially change the meaning of all the other evidence presented regarding the genesis of the Jan 6 riot.
You know, like how it doesn’t make sense to do a lot of expensive tests if it’s not going to change the treatment of the patient.
ETA: did you miss the part where she details who asked for pardons? Or her descriptions of the confiscation of weapons on the ellipse? Seems those are pretty explosive details.
Let’s hear these alternative narratives under oath.
heron, ASN, RN
4,653 Posts
And, still, you carefully fail to make your case.