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.
Like I said a Super Bowl victory party that got out of hand. A few knuckle heads acting stupid while the vast majority were peaceful. Let’s see all the videos that were taken inside the Capitol that day.
Like I said a Super Bowl victory party that got out of hand. A few knuckle heads acting stupid while the vast majority were peaceful. Let’s see all the videos that were taken inside the Capitol that day.
Here’s a recap of your superbowl party. You seem to be OK with what happened. That’s not just sad, it’s pitiful.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
13 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:
Wasn’t a very good attack when they were unarmed most just walking around. More like a super bowl celebration that got out of hand. The only person killed was an unarmed protester.
The fact that Trump's team were largely incompetent in his attempt to overthrow the government is pretty obvious. Your discernment appears to require adjustment.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
11 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:
Like I said a Super Bowl victory party that got out of hand. A few knuckle heads acting stupid while the vast majority were peaceful. Let’s see all the videos that were taken inside the Capitol that day.
You haven't watched the available videos already? Why not?
How many is "a few" knuckle heads, in your poorly informed opinion? Were these knuckle heads part of Navarro's "Greenbay Sweep"? Is that the football reference that we should use for this attempt to overthrow your government?
Here’s a recap of your superbowl party. You seem to be OK with what happened. That’s not just sad, it’s pitiful.
Won’t happen. That poster is all hat, no cattle.
It appears that the criminal mind is different re: both measurable physical and physiological parameters. I'm pretty sure Ashley Babbit didn't consider that she was doing anything wrong or dangerous because she, like other criminals, doesn't react to fear like the normal mind would. I've seen the footage of her face meshed with the other people bashing in the wall of the House. How we perceive violent videos depends on the mindset of the person watching them. People who are incapable of feeling fearfulness may think "no big deal" while others who have developed a moral line in the sand would perceive the same event differently. Frankly, if I were one of the members of Congress in the House that day and saw an irate, violent mob breaking down the door, I wouldn't really care about the criminal that was killed or her fellow rioters who would attempt to turn her into a martyr. What's sad are the previous events in her life that influenced Babbit to
to become a criminal that day.
An excerpt from the APA Journal:
At least one study indicates that such deficits may appear long before people commit crimes. Adrian Raine, DPhil, of the department of criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, led a study with Yu Gao, PhD, at CUNY-Brooklyn that examined fear conditioning, which is dependent on amygdala function, in a group of 1,795 3-year-olds. The researchers put electrodes on the children's fingers while repeatedly playing two tones: one that was followed by a loud, unpleasant sound and another that was played alone. Subsequently, the difference in sweat responses to each tone by itself yielded a measure of each toddler's fear conditioning. Twenty years later, the team identified participants who had gone on to commit crimes and compared them with noncriminal counterparts, matching them on gender, ethnicity and social adversity. They found that those children who went on to commit crimes had "simply failed" to demonstrate fear conditioning, Raine says. In other words, they were fearless when most of us would be fearful. This finding suggests that deficits in the amygdala, which are indirectly identifiable as early as age 3, predispose to crime at age 23 (The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2010).
So, the criminal mind is physically and physiologically different. Do you think Ashley Babbit should have been vi
It appears that the criminal mind is different re: both measurable physical and physiological parameters. I'm pretty sure Ashley Babbit didn't consider that she was doing anything wrong or dangerous because she, like other criminals, doesn't react to fear like the normal mind would. I've seen the footage of her face meshed with the other people bashing in the wall of the House. How we perceive violent videos depends on the mindset of the person watching them. People who are incapable of feeling fearfulness may think "no big deal" while others who have developed a moral line in the sand would perceive the same event differently. Frankly, if I were one of the members of Congress in the House that day and saw an irate, violent mob breaking down the door, I wouldn't really care about the criminal that was killed or her fellow rioters who would attempt to turn her into a martyr. What's sad are the previous events in her life that influenced Babbit to
to become a criminal that day.
An excerpt from the APA Journal:
At least one study indicates that such deficits may appear long before people commit crimes. Adrian Raine, DPhil, of the department of criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, led a study with Yu Gao, PhD, at CUNY-Brooklyn that examined fear conditioning, which is dependent on amygdala function, in a group of 1,795 3-year-olds. The researchers put electrodes on the children's fingers while repeatedly playing two tones: one that was followed by a loud, unpleasant sound and another that was played alone. Subsequently, the difference in sweat responses to each tone by itself yielded a measure of each toddler's fear conditioning. Twenty years later, the team identified participants who had gone on to commit crimes and compared them with noncriminal counterparts, matching them on gender, ethnicity and social adversity. They found that those children who went on to commit crimes had "simply failed" to demonstrate fear conditioning, Raine says. In other words, they were fearless when most of us would be fearful. This finding suggests that deficits in the amygdala, which are indirectly identifiable as early as age 3, predispose to crime at age 23 (The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2010).
So, the criminal mind is physically and physiologically different. Do you think Ashley Babbit should have been vi
Using your logic you have to be all in for Kyle Rittenhouse.
heron, ASN, RN
4,653 Posts
You first