Published
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/03/clark-eastman-fifth-amendment/
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/mark-meadows-lawsuit/index.html
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.
https://www.newsweek.com/mark-meadows-powerpoint-January-election-results-trump-1658076
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.
Only the finest people...
45 minutes ago, nursej22 said:Co-Chair Cheney states that the former guy called an unnamed witness to advise them not to testify. They refused to talk to him, and his lawyer notified the committee. Blatant witness tampering.
The former guy is still criming.
Actually, she said the witness didn't answer or respond to the call. In the quote I saw, Cheney did not say that the witness was advised of anything.
She then made a general statement about witness tampering. And Trump-haters apparently took the bait, once again.
Without knowing what the call was about, hard to conclude it was "blatant witness tampering".
2 minutes ago, Beerman said:Actually, she said the witness didn't answer or respond to the call. In the quote I saw, Cheney did not say that the witness was advised of anything.
She then made a general statement about witness tampering. And Trump-haters apparently took the bait, once again.
Without knowing what the call was about, hard to conclude it was "blatant witness tampering".
Why would the former guy call a potential witness? Just to update his Christmas card list? And why would the witness refuse to talk to him and report the attempted contact to his lawyer? Why did the lawyer feel compelled to notify the committee? Apparently, just to bait Trump haters.
18 minutes ago, nursej22 said:Why would the former guy call a potential witness? Just to update his Christmas card list? And why would the witness refuse to talk to him and report the attempted contact to his lawyer? Why did the lawyer feel compelled to notify the committee? Apparently, just to bait Trump haters.
Your claim was "blatant witness tampering ".
We may find out more later, but if you read Cheney's words closely, it doesn't sound like Trump even spoke with the witness. Nothing was said about a message that was left. And she never directly said Trump tampered with a witness.
This mess with the Secret Service not being able to retrieve text messages from Jan 5 and 6 seems just a little too convenient. The saving of documents was left up to the individual agents?
36 minutes ago, nursej22 said:This mess with the Secret Service not being able to retrieve text messages from Jan 5 and 6 seems just a little too convenient. The saving of documents was left up to the individual agents?
Seems like the SS is engaged in a cover-up.
emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B
2,942 Posts
Hi sunt fututorum insanis