Jan. 6th

Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:39 pm Take a look at Utah where the Dems have decided to not run a candidate against Sen Mike Lee but instead to back Independent candidate.
I like the fact that the Utah Democrats are backing a conservative-leaning independent, Evan McMullin. Hope it catches on.

Why not do it here in Wa. against Dan Newhouse?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -mcmullin/


"Democrats voted 57 percent to 43 percent not to back a candidate at their convention on Saturday. They instead hope to lift the candidacy of McMullin, a never-Trump conservative who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2016 but fared well in Utah."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Rideback »

Take a look at Utah where the Dems have decided to not run a candidate against Sen Mike Lee but instead to back Independent candidate.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

mister_coffee wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 7:33 am In the unlikely chance that the cases against MTG, Madison Cawthorn, and others succeed in keeping them off the ballot it will be a no-brainer to keep the insurrectionist-in-chief off the ballot too.
this is way I propose that moderate democrats join moderate Replubicans to elect moderate Replubicans in districts where a Democrat stands little chance of winning.

At some point we Democrats have to realize that we can help shape the political nature of the Republican Party not by opposition but by cooperation.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by mister_coffee »

In the unlikely chance that the cases against MTG, Madison Cawthorn, and others succeed in keeping them off the ballot it will be a no-brainer to keep the insurrectionist-in-chief off the ballot too.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by PAL »

Just please don't let him run for office.
Pearl Cherrington
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! :-)
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Rideback »

Fortunately, it looks like Trump may actually be on the same 'Target' list as Bannon, Stone and Barrack for DoJ.
And yesterday, a Fed'l judge disagreed with Trump's premise that he is a victim in his lawsuit. https://crooksandliars.com/2022/04/trum ... orce-judge
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by PAL »

OK, how about crazy pathetic old man.
Pearl Cherrington
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by PAL »

So it appears that Trump wanted Pelosi to end the Jan. 6th. insurrection. That he "relinquished" his presidential authority. What kind of a take charge president is that? He didn't call it off until it went on and on. Then he said he loved the insurrectionist.
Talk about rewriting history. I did not include Trump on the crazies list on the other post. Because he is a demented old man.

Trump deflects blame for Jan. 6 silence, says he wanted to march to Capitol
April 7, 2022 at 3:18 am Updated April 7, 2022 at 5:58 am

By
Josh Dawsey
The Washington Post
PALM BEACH, Fla. — Former President Donald Trump voiced regret Wednesday over not marching to the U.S. Capitol the day his supporters stormed the building, and he defended his long silence during the attack by claiming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others were responsible for ending the deadly violence.
“I thought it was a shame, and I kept asking why isn’t she doing something about it? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi doing something about it? And the mayor of D.C. also. The mayor of D.C. and Nancy Pelosi are in charge,” Trump said of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in a 45-minute interview with The Washington Post. “I hated seeing it. I hated seeing it. And I said, ‘It’s got to be taken care of,’ and I assumed they were taking care of it.”
The 45th president has repeatedly deflected blame for stoking the attack with false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and in the interview, he struck a defiant posture, refusing to say whether he would testify before a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault. Trump said he didn’t remember “getting very many” phone calls that day, and he denied removing call logs or using burner phones.
Trump also said he had spoken during his presidency with Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A seven-hour gap in Trump’s phone records on Jan. 6, and Thomas’s texts to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging the White House to fight the election results, have both come under scrutiny by the Jan. 6 committee.
During the attack, Trump watched television, criticized then-Vice President Mike Pence and made calls pushing lawmakers to overturn the election as the violent mob of his supporters ransacked the Capitol. He was eventually persuaded by lawmakers, family members and others to release a video asking his supporters to go home — 187 minutes after he urged them to march to the Capitol during a rally near the White House. He was described by advisers as excited about the event.
Trump, speaking Wednesday afternoon at his palatial beachfront club, said he did not regret urging the crowd to come to Washington with a tweet stating that it would “be wild!” He also stood by his incendiary and false rhetoric about the election at the Ellipse rally before the rioters stormed the Capitol. “I said peaceful and patriotic,” he said, omitting other comments that he made in a speech that day.
In fact, Trump said he deserved more credit for drawing such a large crowd to the Ellipse — and that he pressed to march on the Capitol with his supporters but was stopped by his security detail. “Secret Service said I couldn’t go. I would have gone there in a minute,” he said.
The former president praised organizers of the rally, some of whom have now received subpoenas from federal authorities, and repeatedly bragged about the size of the crowd on the Ellipse, when questioned about the events of Jan. 6.
“The crowd was far bigger than I even thought. I believe it was the largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to. I don’t know what that means, but you see very few pictures. They don’t want to show pictures, the fake news doesn’t want to show pictures,” he said. “But this was a tremendous crowd.”
On at least a dozen occasions in the interview, Trump blamed Pelosi for the events of Jan. 6. On that day, Pelosi was taken to a secure location and worked with some of Trump’s top military officials and others to help secure the building. Trump supporters stormed her office and vowed to hurt her, with some shouting for her by name.
Pelosi does not have total control over the Capitol Police, as Trump alleged, but shares control of the Capitol with the Senate majority leader. Most decisions on securing the Capitol are made by a police board. He also blamed the D.C. mayor, whose advisers furiously tried to reach Trump’s team that day.
“The former president’s desperate lies aside, the speaker was no more in charge of the security of the U.S. Capitol that day than Mitch McConnell,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi.
Trump said he had not destroyed any call logs from the afternoon of Jan. 6 and took part in no phone calls on “burner phones,” even though there is a large gap in his White House phone logs. Trump said that he remembered talking to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and other people during that period. He said he had a “very good” memory but could not say exactly who he talked to that afternoon, or when.
“From the standpoint of telephone calls, I don’t remember getting very many,” he said, later adding, “Why would I care about who called me? If congressmen were calling me, what difference did it make? There was nothing secretive about it. There was no secret.”
Trump said he had talked at times during his presidency with Ginni Thomas, whose texts with Meadows urging him to overturn the election were obtained by The Washington Post and CBS News. But Trump said he wasn’t aware of her electoral efforts. He declined to say whether he thought Meadows should have handed over the text messages to the Jan. 6 committee.
“First of all, her husband is a great justice. And she’s a fine woman. And she loves our country,” he said.
Trump emerged Wednesday in his ornate and gilded Mar-a-Lago living room with the sun beaming into the couches alongside two advisers — Susie Wiles, who occasionally suggested it was time for the interview to end, and David Bossie, whose family stood nearby. After he asked four times, loud music piping into the ballroom was turned down. He wore a blazer with no tie and carried a Diet Coke as he sat near a toy Air Force One.
He meandered during the interview and stonewalled questions with long answers. He appeared to be in a good mood, aside from when he faced a series of questions about Jan. 6.
Pearl Cherrington
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

What explains the suspicious gap in Trump’s call log?
Aaron Blake - 37m ago

From the moment we learned the extent of the 7.5-hour gap in White House records of President Trump’s phone calls on Jan. 6, 2021, the question has been: How did this happen? Could it just be sloppy record-keeping — that so happened to overlap with the most critical and problematic portion of that day (that is, the insurrection)? Could Trump have used burner phones? Or could someone even have engaged in Watergate-style tampering?

The answer isn’t just a matter of curiosity; it could matter legally. Coverups, after all, can be used to prove criminal intent. And the Jan. 6 investigation is trending in that direction, with some recent validation.

All of the above-mentioned options are viable, given what we know so far. We know for a fact that the gap wasn’t the result of Trump staying off his phone, since we have at least five phone calls in the public record that aren’t accounted for in the call log. One of them appears in the White House daily diary — a retrospective summary of the president’s actions — but, for some reason, not the call log. And it, for some reason, lacks the detail of the other calls in the diary, including the other party to the call.

Since the news of the gap broke Tuesday, we’ve been able to connect a couple key dots:

That final call before the 7.5-hour gap — at 11:17 a.m. — appears to have been with then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), based on another document. And according to the same document, it was apparently followed shortly thereafter by a Trump call with then-Vice President Pence at 11:20 a.m. — a call that isn’t recorded at all in either the diary or call log.
Another of the unaccounted-for calls — a 2:26 p.m. call mistakenly made to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in search of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) — appears to have come from a White House device.
That latter revelation comes courtesy of the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell, who confirmed that the call to Lee came from a number listed as 202-395-0000. That number signifies it originated on an official White House phone.

Both of these suggest the gap didn’t result from the use of untraceable burner phones. If the idea was to shield communications as the plot to overturn the election unfolded, why would the 7.5-hour gap feature a call from a White House device — smack in the middle, at 2:26 p.m.?

As for the idea that there was some kind of real-time effort to obscure Trump’s actions, a valid question is why it would begin that early — in the 11 a.m. hour, three hours before the insurrection. There’s very little reason for such an effort to obscure the calls to Loeffler and Pence, since they were calls you might well have expected Trump to make. Loeffler, after all, had just been defeated in a runoff, and the call logs show Trump had also called the other defeated Georgia GOP senator, David Perdue. That Trump would talk to Pence wouldn’t be out of the ordinary, either. (True, the content of the call was Trump asking Pence to overturn the election, but he had engaged in that kind of talk very publicly.)

The counterpoint is that those calls simply could have been wrapped up in a larger effort to cover Trump’s tracks. And that’s where the 11:17 a.m. call is particularly intriguing.

This call stands out. Not only did it omit the other party and other details — which all the other calls included — it was listed in the daily diary but, for some reason, not in the call log. The other calls are listed in both.

It’s possible the lack of detail on that call and its exclusion from the call log simply reflected the beginning of 7.5 hours of sloppiness. But it could also point to tampering after the fact.

As Lowell notes, the daily diary is a retrospective record put together by aides “who have some sway to determine whether a particular event was significant enough to warrant its inclusion.” Piecing together that record could involve reviewing call logs. So how would a call that doesn’t appear in the call logs find its way onto the daily diary? It seems possible that someone knew about the call but couldn’t piece together who it was with, or details like how long it lasted.

And why wouldn’t that information have been available in the call log? One possibility which hasn’t gotten enough attention is that a page of the call logs might be missing, for whatever reason.

As we observed Tuesday, the format of the call log and the it gap contains are notable. The final recorded call before the gap — the 11:04 a.m. call to Perdue — happens to come at the end of a page, and the next recorded call — a request for White House aide Dan Scavino at 6:54 p.m. — is at the top of the next one. If the gap were to have appeared in the middle of one of those pages, it wouldn’t rule out tampering, but the tampering would’ve been more involved (i.e. going into the document and editing it, rather than simply getting rid of a page).

This, of course, proves nothing; we simply don’t know. But Trump made a habit of not complying with record-keeping rules, including destroying documents and removing the very documents the Jan. 6 committee has sought. His first impeachment involved an unseemly document — the transcript of the call in which he tried to leverage Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky for political dirt — being moved to a classified server. With someone who so cavalierly flouts such rules, it’s difficult to rule such things out.

Stay tuned. The gap is important; the reason for it is more important.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnbfcL
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

I can't wait to hear the start of chants...

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Rideback »

Oh, trust me, it hasn't been put on the back burner. It has been building. Cheney gave an update on what they are focused on now, which is DoJ referrals as well as to hold open hearings this Spring. Roger Stone is in the hot seat with the pleadings of Oath Keepers demonstrating his involvement.
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

Jan 6th has been put on a back burner with the Ukraine war going on...

Exclusive: Witness Claims Trump’s Chief of Staff Was on Phone Call Planning Jan. 6 March on Capitol

Trump’s team agreed it would encourage supporters to march, but try to “make it look like they went down there on their own,” Scott Johnston tells Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... s-1324218/
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

Stephen Colbert Jan 6th anniversary sung to "Rent" 525,600 minutes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H_IxT2ei9gU
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by PAL »

Yes, even Fox News used the word "attacked". And pointed out that only one Republican, Liz Cheney, showed up for the legislators that spoke about what they went through on that day. The GOP or now I call it, BLP, Big Lie Party, were saying that the Democrats were politicizing Jan. 6th with this tribute today. He, he he! Of course that's what they say when they have no idea of what else to say. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are people in the chamber, fearing for their lives.
So I thought, the Majority of the American people do not believe the big lie. The majority of Republicans do and the GOP or BLP. So overall it's a minority of people that believe the lie. If so, then we need to fight for our Democracy.

But here is the rub. That's what "they" want, the GOP. They want us fighting each other. Here is Roger Stone's philosophy, one of Trumps advisors: "Politics is not about uniting people. It's about dividing people. And getting your 51%".
And H.L. Mencken a century ago wrote, "The whole aim of practical politics, is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I watched Fox today a bit, just to see where they stood. They did not stand with the insurrectionists. This was Neil Cavato. He
interviewed legislators too, that experienced it. And get this, Neil did not slay them with comments, like Fox can do.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

Liz Cheney just said on ABC that Replubicans need to decide to either be loyal to our Constitution or Trump and that Trump should never be allowed to hold power again.

Transcript


"And we're joined now by the vice chair of the committee, Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

Congresswoman Cheney, thank you for joining us again. Happy New Year to you.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): You, too, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you were alarmed by this from the very start, from the moments -- from the first moments on January 6th when this started to unfold. You've got a lonely path in your party.

Have you been surprised by anything you've found over the last year?

CHENEY: Well, I’ve certainly been surprised by many things. I think that in the piece you played by Jon Karl just a few moments ago, he touched on the fact that we know now -- we are learning much more about what former President Trump was doing while the violent assault was under way. The committee has firsthand testimony now that he was sitting in the dining room next to the Oval Office watching the attack on television as the assault on the Capitol occurred.

We know, as you know well, that the briefing room at the White House is just a mere few steps from the Oval Office. The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television, and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop.

He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. It's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is his failure to make that statement criminal negligence?

CHENEY: You know, I think that there are a number of -- as the chairman said, potential criminal statutes at issue here, but I think that there’s absolutely no question that it was a dereliction of duty. And I think one of the things the committee needs to look at is we’re looking at a legislative purpose is whether we need enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty.

But I think it's also important for the American people to understand how dangerous Donald Trump was. We know as he was sitting there in the dining room next to the Oval Office, members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television, to tell people to stop. We know Leader McCarthy was pleading with him to do that.

We know members of his family, we know his daughter. We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence.

Any man who would not do so, any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten, as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States, is clearly unfit for future office, clearly can never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hillary Clinton said a couple of weeks ago that if he runs and wins, that could be the end of our democracy. Do you share that fear?

CHENEY: I do. I think it is critically important, given everything we know about the lines that he was willing to cross -- he crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before. You know, we entrust the survival of our republic into the hands of the chief executive, and when a president refuses to tell the mob to stop, when he refuses to defend any of the coordinate branches of government, he cannot be trusted.

And we watched what this president did from -- throughout the election, the lies that he told, the extent to which he went to war with the rule of law. He completely ignored the rulings of over 60 courts, including judges he had appointed and refused to send help, refused to tell people to stand down for multiple hours while that attack was under way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re about as stalwart Republican as I’ve ever met. You come from a long line of Republicans a well. Of course, your father served in the White House. Your mother served in administrations as well.

How do you explain given your belief, your views and your background, why a majority of Republicans today would re-elect Donald Trump?

CHENEY: Look. I think that we're in a situation as a nation where I certainly have very strong disagreements with policies of the Biden administration. I think that the policies that vice president -- President Biden has adopted are the wrong ones for this country. I think we need conservative, principled leadership.

But the Republican Party has to make a choice. We can either be loyal to our Constitution or loyal to Donald Trump, but we cannot be both. And the nation needs a Republican Party that is based on substance and values and principles, and -- and we've got to get back to that if we want to get this nation back on track. But, fundamentally, at the end of the day, we can't be a party that's based on lies. We've got to be based on a foundation of truth and fidelity to the rule of law. And, in my view, the most conservative of conservative principles is fidelity to the Constitution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As we approach this anniversary, partisan views seem to be hardening. Do you have any evidence -- do you have hope that your report can actually change some minds?

CHENEY: You know, this committee gives me hope, George. I think that the way that the select committee is working is non-partisan. It is very much one that brings together a group of us who have very different policy views, but who come together when the issues have to do with the defense of the Constitution. And -- so that does give me hope.

And I also think the American people are looking for serious leadership. They're looking for people certainly on both sides of the aisle who are going to dedicate themselves to policy and substance and engage in the debates that we need for the health of the nation and get away from the kind of vitriol that we are seeing too frequently, too often, frankly on both sides, but as Republicans we have a particular duty to reject insurrection, to reject what happened on January 6th, and to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-tr ... d=82031557
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by PAL »

The latest Atlantic Monthly has an article entitled, "January 6th. Was Practice". As you all may have read elsewhere, many GOP states are working now, rewriting statutes to seize partisan control of ballots. Goodbye democracy. Also a book, "Wildland", The Making of America's Fury" by Evan Osnos. Gives an objective background of the buildup of what we are now experiencing. Very well written, doesn't bog down, library book.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

Liz Cheney responds to a Trump misdirection.




Rep. Liz Cheney
@RepLizCheney
·
Dec 29
False. The ⁦
@January6thCmte
⁩ hasn’t dropped requests for any necessary records. In fact, we’re actively litigating to obtain White House records Trump is trying to conceal. We will not allow him to hide the truth about January 6th, or his conduct, from the American people.
Attachments
FH0LStzWYAcx8-7.jpeg
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

Capitol panel to investigate Trump call to Willard hotel in hours before attack

Hugo Lowell in Washington - 31m ago

Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, has said the panel will open an inquiry into Donald Trump’s phone call seeking to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January hours before the insurrection.

The chairman said the select committee intended to scrutinize the phone call – revealed last month by the Guardian – should they prevail in their legal effort to obtain Trump White House records over the former president’s objections of executive privilege.

“That’s right,” Thompson said when asked by the Guardian whether the select committee would look into Trump’s phone call, and suggested House investigators had already started to consider ways to investigate Trump’s demand that Biden not be certified as president on 6 January.

Thompson said the select committee could not ask the National Archives for records about specific calls, but noted “if we say we want all White House calls made on January 5 and 6, if he made it on a White House phone, then obviously we would look at it there.”

The Guardian reported last month that Trump, according to multiple sources, called lieutenants based at the Willard hotel in Washington DC from the White House in the late hours of 5 January and sought ways to stop Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.

Trump first told the lieutenants his vice-president, Mike Pence, was reluctant to go along with the plan to commandeer his ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress in a way that would allow Trump to retain the presidency for a second term, the sources said.

But as Trump relayed to them the situation with Pence, the sources said, on at least one call, he pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January in a scheme to get alternate slates of electors for Trump sent to Congress.

The former president’s remarks came as part of wider discussions he had with the lieutenants at the Willard – a team led by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Trump strategist Steve Bannon – about delaying the certification, the sources said.

House investigators in recent months have pursued an initial in into Trump’s contacts with lieutenants at the Willard, issuing a flurry of subpoenas compelling documents and testimony to crucial witnesses, including Bannon and Eastman.

But Thompson said that the select committee would now also investigate both the contents of Trump’s phone calls to the Willard and the White House’s potential involvement, in a move certain to intensify the pressure on the former president’s inner circle.

“If we get the information that we requested,” Thompson said of the select committee’s demands for records from the Trump White House and Trump aides, “those calls potentially will be reflected to the Willard hotel and whomever.”

A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment about what else such a line of inquiry might involve. But a subpoena to Giuliani, the lead Trump lawyer at the Willard, is understood to be in the offing, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The Guardian reported that the night before the Capitol attack, Trump called the lawyers and non-lawyers at the Willard separately, because Giuliani did not want to have non-lawyers participate on sensitive calls and jeopardize claims to attorney-client privilege.

It was not clear whether Giulaini might invoke attorney-client privilege as a way to escape cooperating with the investigation in the event of a subpoena, but Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee, noted the protection does not confer broad immunity.

“The attorney-client privilege does not operate to shield participants in a crime from an investigation into a crime,” Raskin said. “If it did, then all you would have to do to rob a bank is bring a lawyer with you, and be asking for advice along the way.”

The Guardian also reported Trump made several calls the day before the Capitol attack from both the White House residence, his preferred place to work, as well as the West Wing, but it was not certain from which location he phoned his top lieutenants at the Willard.

The distinction is significant as phone calls placed from the White House residence, even from a landline desk phone, are not automatically memorialized in records sent to the National Archives after the end of an administration.

That means even if the select committee succeeds in its litigation to pry free Trump’s call detail records from the National Archives, without testimony from people with knowledge of what was said, House investigators might only learn the target and time of the calls.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AASaUJN
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

Trump and the January 6 committee are now locked in a full-on confrontation

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN - Yesterday 9:39 PM

Nearly a year after his failed coup attempt, Donald Trump's habit of putting his own political gain over truth is playing out again as the ex-commander-in-chief and his associates seek to delay and defy the House select committee probing the January 6 insurrection.

Trump's campaign of obstruction, which has now reached the Supreme Court, raises questions about whether the panel, already facing a racing clock ahead of next year's midterms, will fulfill its goal of a historic accounting of his efforts to overturn the election. Trump's inner circle is locked into a strategy of preventing a comprehensive reckoning over one of the most notorious days ever in the United States and seeking to whitewash history as he readies an apparent new run for the White House.

The panel's attempt to reach deep into Trump world and behind the scenes in the West Wing on January 6 kicked into higher gear in the days before Christmas, offering new insight into its areas of focus. Trump responded by stepping up his own strategy of defying the truth. It is now clear committee members are trying to build a detailed picture of exactly what Trump said, did and thought in the days leading up to the insurrection and in the hours when it raged on Capitol Hill after he incited the mob with fresh election fraud lies.

For the first time, the panel publicly called for testimony from lawmakers closely bound up in Trump's effort to discredit the 2020 election and cling to power. It asked Rep. Scott Perry to talk about his effort to install Jeffrey Clark, an official who wanted the Justice Department to pursue Trump's lies about electoral fraud as attorney general. The Pennsylvania Republican declined, arguing the panel was illegally constituted -- even though it was created by a vote in the full House. The committee also asked another Trump crony, Rep. Jim Jordan, to discuss what it says are his multiple communications with the ex-President on January 6. The Ohio Republican has yet to respond, but his loyalty to Trump and fierce attacks on the committee suggest he's unlikely to be a cooperative witness.

Committee members could soon face the decision of whether to subpoena Perry and Jordan, a move that would be certain to further worsen incendiary relations between Democrats and Republicans in the House. The Democratic-led body has already sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department dealing with two witnesses who refused to submit to subpoenas -- Trump political guru Steve Bannon, who has already been indicted, and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

There are also new insights emerging from court documents involving Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich, which show that the committee is expanding its investigation into the financing of pro-Trump rallies leading up to the riot -- including the one in Washington, DC, on January 6 at which the then-President told his supporters to "fight like Hell" and which evolved into the insurrection.

Trump associates who don't want to testify are relying on his expansive claims of executive privilege, which many legal scholars view as dubious, to avoid saying what they know about the Capitol insurrection. Two days before Christmas, Trump, who has a long history in and out of office of using the legal system to avoid and delay accountability, went to the Supreme Court, appealing to the conservative-majority he helped construct to block the release of White House documents to the committee. Trump asked the nation's top bench to conduct a full review of the case to stop the release of speech notes, activity logs and schedules and to put a lower court ruling allowing them to be handed over on hold.

The committee quickly responded, seeking to head off an attempt by the former President to jam it in a long legal battle, asking the court to say by the middle of next month whether it is taking the case. Trump's legal team argues that it is vital for future presidents to be confident that their deliberations with advisers will be kept confidential even when they have left office. But President Joe Biden, with whom questions of asserting executive privilege now rest, has argued that it is vital for the nation to achieve an understanding of what went on during the Capitol riot and has refused Trump's claims. The idea that the twice-impeached former President is acting in defense of the office that he often compromised with abuses of power and used to pursue personal goals is hard to read with a straight face. But it threatens to unleash a constitutional wrangle that could frustrate the committee's attempts to clarify Trump's intentions and actions on January 6.

The committee may be on borrowed time

The committee does not have the luxury of time. It is already clear that Republicans, who have a good chance of taking back the House in November's midterm elections, will shut down the panel as soon as they have power.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has anchored his bid to become speaker on Trump's patronage after briefly suggesting the then-President bore responsibility for the riot of his supporters at the Capitol. Among his services to Trump was help in thwarting plans for an independent 9/11-style commission to probe the worst attack on US democracy in modern history. McCarthy also leads a party that has ostracized the Republican members of the select committee, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois -- two staunch conservatives who have been willing to tell the truth about what happened.

Kinzinger is not running for reelection while Cheney is facing a Trump-backed primary challenger. Another Republican who voted to impeach Trump over the insurrection, Rep. Fred Upton, has also drawn a primary challenger endorsed by the ex-President who has given credence to election fraud lies.

"I watched people go down the Mall, and I saw them come back," the Michigan congressman told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday, describing his experience on January 6. "And I heard the noises and obviously was watching what happened. But it was real and shocking and ... it was a scary day."

Upton's unwillingness to buy into Trump's personality cult, which requires fact-defying obeisance to fantasies of a stolen election, could cost him his political career. If so, he will join the growing list of Republicans drummed out of power by the former President in an operation that ensures a possible future House GOP majority will be in his thrall and is likely to be a weaponized force for Trumpism as the 2024 presidential election looms.

From the outside, it is difficult to tell how deeply the House select committee has managed to penetrate what was happening in Trump's West Wing on January 6. While several prominent associates of the ex-President are refusing to testify, the committee has conducted several hundred interviews with people inside and outside the former administration. Not everyone has the political commitment or the financial resources to enter a legal battle by defying a subpoena. And details from the lawsuit that emerged on Christmas Eve showed that Budowich had supplied the committee with more than 1,700 pages of documents and provided about four hours of testimony. He sued on Friday night to stop the committee from obtaining records from a bank. The previously undisclosed records request is another indication the committee has made substantial behind-the-scenes progress and could at least partially derail Trump's cover-up despite his best efforts.

The still-emerging horror of the insurrection
It is a measure of the horror of January 6 -- now nearly a year on -- that new details of the frantic, dangerous hours on Capitol Hill and the heroism of police officers insulted by the GOP's attempt to deny history, are still emerging.

The Justice Department last week released vivid video of a three-hour battle in which rioters brandished weapons and officers were severely beaten in a tunnel on Capitol Hill. The video, taken from a Capitol security camera, was released after CNN and other news outlets sued for access. It showed pro-Trump rioters jabbing police with flag poles, using pepper spray and crushing an officer in a door. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone was pulled out of the police line and into the crowd by a rioter who had his arm around his neck. The video shows Fanone eventually falling down and disappearing into the mass of rioters, where he said he was tased in the neck, beaten with a flagpole and heard rioters screaming "kill him with his own gun." Fanone said he suffered a heart attack and fell unconscious during the attack.

Yet Trump, who issued a series of delusional statements last week and promises a press conference on the anniversary of the January 6 riot, maintains "the insurrection took place on November 3rd, it was the completely unarmed protest of the rigged election that took place on January 6."

The power of that lie, and the ex-President's apparent determination to win back power on the strength of it in 2024, shows why the House select committee's effort to expose the truth is so important.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AASawr3
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

Trump spokesman turned over 1,700 pages of documents and testified for 4 hours for Jan. 6 committee, per new court docs

aharoun@businessinsider.com (Azmi Haroun) - Yesterday 6:31 PM

Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich said that he's turned over 1,700 documents to the Jan. 6 committee.
Budowich added that he has testified for "roughly four hours."
Budowich is suing the committee to prevent them from accessing his financial records from JP Morgan.
Former President Donald Trump's spokesperson Taylor Budowich revealed in a new court filing that he provided the House select committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, with at least 1,700 pages of documents and sat for "roughly four hours of sworn testimony," according to court documents reviewed by Insider and first reported on by Politico's Kyle Cheney.

Budowich and Conservative Strategies, Inc. are suing the Jan. 6 committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, JP Morgan, and other individual members of the committee over a subpoena for his financial records from JP Morgan. The suit was filed on December 24 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

He is arguing that the move is a violation of the Financial Privacy Act.

According to the filings, Budowich "answered questions, concerning payments made and received regarding his involvement in the planning of a peaceful, lawful rally to celebrate President Trump's accomplishments."

In late November, the committee issued subpoenas to Trump loyalists including Budowich and Alex Jones, for their alleged roles in Jan. 6.

According to a letter from the House select committee, members of the committee wanted to question Budowich about funding for a 501(c)(4) promoting the January 6 rally, where Trump spoke, the preceded the Capitol riot.

Insider could not immediately reach Budowich for comment.


Read the original article on Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-s ... ee-2021-12
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by mister_coffee »

alfrandell wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 8:44 am ...
what is going on here?
We all really know exactly what is going on here.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by pasayten »

‘Flynn Has Failed’: Federal Judge Immediately Rejects ex-National Security Advisor’s Motion to Halt Jan. 6 Committee Investigation

Elura Nanos - Yesterday 9:36 AM

Former Donald Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn will have to turn over documents related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex. Flynn is one of many Trump allies who sued Nancy Pelosi and the U.S. House of Representatives in an effort to evade discovery requests issued by the House Select Committee as part of its investigation into Trump’s involvement in the event.

U.S. District Judge Mary Stenson Scriven, a George W. Bush appointee, denied Flynn’s last-minute motion for a temporary restraining order on Wednesday. Judge Scriven’s six-page order against Flynn reads like a lengthy reprimand. Flynn’s motion for temporary restraining order — filed just one day before he was due to provide evidence in the Committee probe — was deficient on multiple fronts ranging from the substantive to the procedural, the judge determined.

In the underlying complaint in the lawsuit filed on December 21, Flynn cast himself as something of conscientious objector:

Like many Americans in late 2020, and to this day, General Flynn has sincerely held concerns about the integrity of the 2020 elections. It is not a crime to hold such beliefs, regardless of whether they are correct or mistaken, to discuss them with others, to associate with those who share the same belief, or to ask the government to address such political concerns. Indeed, it is our fundamental Constitutional right to speak about and associate around political issues that concern us, and to petition our government about those grievances.

Flynn argued that unless the courts step in to protect him, he “faces the harm of being irreparably and illegally coerced to produce information and testimony in violation of the law and his constitutional rights.”

In his documents submitted to the court, however, Flynn never detailed the nature of that alleged harm. Rather, Flynn’s remarkably brief six-count certification contained a simple denial upon which to base his protestations.

“I did not organize, speak at, or actively participate in any of the rallies or protests in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, and I did not participate in the attack on the United States Capitol that day,” Flynn said.

On the same day the lawsuit was commenced, Flynn also filed a motion for temporary restraining order. It asked that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida halt the Committee’s discovery requests and allow him to avoid both a deposition and the production of documents.

Judge Scriven walked Flynn through the many problems with his request in her order Wednesday.

A party requesting a restraining order shielding them from discovery, explained Scriven, is expected to try and resolve the matter among counsel before involving the court. “Flynn has failed to comply with these procedural requirements,” wrote Scriven, referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Flynn did not submit a certification from his attorney describing efforts made to notify the House select committee of his objections. Rather, Flynn’s attorney submitted a certification in which he claims to have notified the committee verbally that his client would challenge the discovery demands.

“Notably, Flynn has not attached a copy of the ‘formal letter’ his counsel sent to the Select Committee,” Scriven pointed out. This lead the judge to conclude “there is no evidence that Flynn’s counsel provided any notice — through formal service or otherwise — of the motion for temporary restraining order.”

What’s more, there are some procedural requirements that emanate from naming Nancy Pelosi as the defendant in Flynn’s lawsuit — and Flynn did not follow the rules. The official caption of the case is Michael Flynn v. Nancy Pelosi, in her official capacity as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, et al. However, remarked Scriven, “there is no evidence that Flynn’s counsel made any effort to provide notice to Speaker Pelosi, who is not a member of the Select Committee.”

“Flynn’s failure to provide the information required under Rule 65(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 6.01(b) is fatal to his request for a temporary restraining order without notice,” the judge immediately noted.

Procedural defects aside, Flynn also failed to present any actual argument as to why the committee’s requests are unduly burdensome. For starters, pointed out the judge, Flynn was initially required to provide documents by November 23, 2021. He was later given an open-ended extension, and no new date has yet been set. Without an imminent deadline looming, explained Scriven, “there is no basis to conclude that Flynn will face ‘immediate and irreparable’ harm” warranting an emergency order.

Sriven’s denial of Flynn’s motion was without prejudice, which means he is permitted to refile the case should circumstances change. However, Scriven provided some advice to the former National Security Advisor: “If Flynn chooses to renew his request for a temporary restraining order, he must adequately explain why injunctive relief is necessary before Defendants have an opportunity to respond.”

Counsel for Michael Flynn did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s request for comment.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Jan. 6th

Post by Fun CH »

Seems that you are deflecting from the main issue again.

That's a nice narrative Ken, but lacking of supporting material facts.

In Trumps case of election interference just listen to the phone record tape with Trump talking to the Georgia Secretary of State who is now trumps political enemy because that Secretary of State stood up for a higher principle. Truth.

Just find me enough votes to win or else.

The evidence is overwhelming for all to see.


Transcript of that call.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest