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.
For a year and a half now we've all been waiting for evidence of this great conspiracy that Trump planned and tried to carry out a takeover of our govt.
That narrative has been reduced to he didn't try to quell the riot for a "187 minutes".
We'll have to agree to disagree.
My point was that politicians have done worse, and that has had a far greater effect on our lives than what Trump did or didn't do that day.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
16 minutes ago, Beerman said:
For a year and a half now we've all been waiting for evidence of this great conspiracy that Trump planned and tried to carry out a takeover of our govt.
That narrative has been reduced to he didn't try to quell the riot for a "187 minutes".
We'll have to agree to disagree.
My point was that politicians have done worse, and that has had a far greater effect on our lives than what Trump did or didn't do that day.
The right wing media that you consume has reduced the narrative to that 3 hours of inaction...but you can't know that because you are (intentionally) not conversant with what the narrative includes beyond that 187 minutes of dereliction of duty.
Your point is a right wing projection that you cannot support with actual facts or details. You've already demonstrated that. If your "point" wasn't nonsense you would be able to tell us what occurred that was worse than an attempted coup orchestrated by republican politicians...but you can't.
For a year and a half now we've all been waiting for evidence of this great conspiracy that Trump planned and tried to carry out a takeover of our govt.
That narrative has been reduced to he didn't try to quell the riot for a "187 minutes".
We'll have to agree to disagree.
My point was that politicians have done worse, and that has had a far greater effect on our lives than what Trump did or didn't do that day.
Well, you clearly have not been following the actual hearings and have no idea of what evidence does or does not exist.
Well, you clearly have not been following the actual hearings and have no idea of what evidence does or does not exist.
As I said, time will tell.
And, the hearings are a heavily edited and produced version of the evidence.
Here's but one example of the selective information the committee is seeking:
"Two people familiar with former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone's testimony Friday told CNN that the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, did not ask him if he told then-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson the day of the attack that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
6 minutes ago, Beerman said:
And, the hearings are a heavily edited and produced version of the evidence.
Here's but one example of the selective information the committee is seeking:
"Two people familiar with former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone's testimony Friday told CNN that the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, did not ask him if he told then-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson the day of the attack that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol."
How long will you hang your hat on the unsworn remarks about what was asked of the reluctant witness? Do you think it's more important whether Cipollone said exact words or that he was unequivocal that Trump should not go to the capitol because it was clearly so wrong? My guess is that these denials are as valuable as the denials about the secret service remarks.
And, the hearings are a heavily edited and produced version of the evidence.
Here's but one example of the selective information the committee is seeking:
"Two people familiar with former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone's testimony Friday told CNN that the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, did not ask him if he told then-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson the day of the attack that they would "get charged with every crime imaginable" if they went to the US Capitol."
Of course they are … but they arise out of hard evidence, closed hearings and depositions under oath that will eventually be public record - as opposed to the Mueller report that was suppressed by Bill Barr.
The point is that they are presenting hard evidence in the form of texts, emails and other documents, and eyewitness testimony that is given in some cases, against the witness’s own self interest. Way more credible than Sydney Powell, Mike Lindell and Rudy Giuliani, fer sure.
Yes, there certainly could be some Chicken Little hysteria going on … but I think it’s a lot less than right-wing media encourages you to believe. I also think that dismissing the events of Jan 6 as no big deal, while it’s certainly the party line, is premature and pretty naive.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
I would say that dismissing the events of January 6th is evidence of ignorance, indoctrination or unpatriotic ideas about how our government and elections should work.
I haven't seen any evidence that January 6th was no big deal. I know, proving the negative is hard but not impossible. It certainly is requiring, at least, judiciary time in an already clogged court schedule. We have to pay for all the costs adjudicating for the jailed rioters. Judges are tied up addressing these boneheads in courts already backlogged.
I would say that dismissing the events of January 6th is evidence of ignorance, indoctrination or unpatriotic ideas about how our government and elections should work.
Well, you clearly have not been following the actual hearings and have no idea of what evidence does or does not exist.
As I said, time will tell.
less than 3-4% of the country have been following the hearings. A total nothing burger. Those that participated in the mostly peaceful exercise are being rounded up or investigated. The most peaceful insurrection in human history.
less than 3-4% of the country have been following the hearings. A total nothing burger. Those that participated in the mostly peaceful exercise are being rounded up or investigated. The most peaceful insurrection in human history.
heron, ASN, RN
4,646 Posts
How do you know what the “facts” are?