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.
I would agree with most of that, although I'm not sure how you determined lies from one side are more egregious than the other.
I'd also add, just as dangerous as the lies, are the stories that are not covered.
Well … start with Jewish space lasers and pizza parlor pedophiles, move into inaugural crowd size, CRT and welfare queens, and finish up with climate denialism and slavering kindergarten teachers forcing kids to become gay or transgender.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
39 minutes ago, Beerman said:
I would agree with most of that, although I'm not sure how you determined lies from one side are more egregious than the other.
I'd also add, just as dangerous as the lies, are the stories that are not covered.
Are the lies of one side defending or deflecting from evidence of anti-american thinking or actions of Republicans and Trump supporters? Then that would make those lies worse than lies that aren't intended to subvert elections in the USA, IMV.
I would ask you to defend the belief that a story that is uncovered by the majority of the press is just as dangerous as the lies that have conservative voters believing and fighting for the destruction of our democratic republic. What information has influenced that belief? Which stories are you thinking are just as dangerous as that?
I would agree with most of that, although I'm not sure how you determined lies from one side are more egregious than the other.
I'd also add, just as dangerous as the lies, are the stories that are not covered.
I consider lies that encourage impeding the peaceful transfer of power to be more egregious than, well, I can’t find anything spewed by the left that comes anywhere close.
Well … start with Jewish space lasers and pizza parlor pedophiles, move into inaugural crowd size, CRT and welfare queens, and finish up with climate denialism and slavering kindergarten teachers forcing kids to become gay or transgender.
And, lest we forget, voter fraud and stolen elections
I consider lies that encourage impeding the peaceful transfer of power to be more egregious than, well, I can’t find anything spewed by the left that comes anywhere close.
And which stories aren’t being covered?
Well, that's your opinion, of course. I'm sure you realize we could go tit for tat, but that wouldn't be a very worthwhile exercise.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, Beerman said:
Well, that's your opinion, of course. I'm sure you realize we could go tit for tat, but that wouldn't be a very worthwhile exercise.
Yes it would be worthwhile. I definitely think that you should tell us which lies are as bad as or worse than intentional lies which sought to encourage impeding the peaceful transfer of power.
You made the claim now you should give us some specific examples which qualify, from your perspective and opinion. Prove that you can go tit for tat.
Yes it would be worthwhile. I definitely think that you should tell us which lies are as bad as or worse than intentional lies which sought to encourage impeding the peaceful transfer of power.
You made the claim now you should give us some specific examples which qualify, from your perspective and opinion. Prove that you can go tit for tat.
Discrimination is skill. It has to be applied and honed. This is not a particularly Republican value at this time.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) presented a flag from the U.S. Capitol on Friday to Simone Gold, who was sentenced to 60 days in prison for her actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
Gold, who founded the anti-COVID-19 restriction group America’s Frontline Doctors and promoted the unproven drug hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19, pleaded guilty in March to entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds during the storming of the Capitol. She was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment and ordered to pay a $9,500 fine.
What an odd thing to do. Why would she want the flag that was flying the day that she desecrated the capitol building?
Quote
Gohmert said in a release that Gold is a “patriot” and “American hero.”
“After having her name and reputation shamefully dragged through the mud, the Biden administration’s DOJ threw her in prison for peacefully walking into the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and delivering a speech,” Gohmert said. “Dr. Gold is the definition of what a political prisoner looks like—something I never thought I’d see here in the United States of America.”
Patriots don't interfere with the peaceful transition of power to elevate a man who lost a election.
peacefully walking into the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and delivering a speech,
Clearly some politicians are trying to change the narrative of that day, can't acknowledge that the events were criminal because they think it's patriotic, and can't move on.
Reminds of the time that someone here called it "just people taking selfies at the Capitol".
Former senior technical adviser for the January 6 Committee, Denver Riggleman, said the White House switchboard connected a phone call to a Capitol rioter on January 6, 2021.
"You get a real 'a-ha' moment when you see that the White House switchboard had connected to a rioter's phone while it's happening," Riggleman told 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker. "That's a big, pretty big 'a-ha' moment."
Riggleman, an ex-military intelligence officer and former Republican congressman from Virginia, oversaw a data-driven operation for the January 6 committee, pursuing phone records and other digital clues tied to the attack on the Capitol. He stopped working for the committee in April.
Quote
"I only know one end of that call," Riggleman said. "I don't know the White House end, which I believe is more important. But the thing is the American people need to know that there are link connections that need to be explored more."
Specific White House phone numbers are kept secret to protect every administration. In a soon-to-be-released book, Riggleman writes he had begged the January 6 Committee to push harder to identify the numbers.
Who do you think was calling a rioter from inside the white house?
Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes and other defendants in a seditious conspiracy case involving the Jan. 6 Capitol riot will be able to argue that actions they took were in preparation for former President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a judge decided.
The defendants, however, won’t be able to say in their opening statements that the president had the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, said US District Judge Amit Mehta. “That is a legal question,” he said Thursday.
Trump is going to be implicated by his extremist's testimony and defense.
Quote
The discussion over use of the Insurrection Act comes several days before the start of jury questioning. The five defendants in the case face several charges including one for seditious conspiracy, the most serious crime to be alleged in the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. The defense plans to lean on the Insurrection Act to argue there was no seditious conspiracy or plan to stop the transfer of presidential power by force as alleged. Rather, based on past statements by Trump, there was good reason to believe he would invoke the act on Jan. 6.
“What the Government contends was a conspiracy to oppose United States laws was actually lobbying and preparation for the President to utilize a United States law,” according to a Tuesday filing by Rhodes’ lawyers. They argued that Trump had the authority to call on a militia to respond “to what he perceived as a conspiracy to deprive a class of persons in several states of their voting rights” and to respond to riots in Washington to enforce federal laws.
heron, ASN, RN
4,645 Posts
Well … start with Jewish space lasers and pizza parlor pedophiles, move into inaugural crowd size, CRT and welfare queens, and finish up with climate denialism and slavering kindergarten teachers forcing kids to become gay or transgender.