Jan. 6th

[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]

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

[mister_coffee]

...
what is going on here?

We all really know exactly what is going on here.

[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.

[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

[dorankj]

It will sure be interesting when the next President can release Joe’s records and deny executive privilege from advisors. Throwing away long standing principles just to get your political enemy is only ever good short term.

[pasayten]

The Jan 6th committee is uncovering some great facts and information leading up to and about the riot/insurrection for all to see... "ranking member" or not... Courts supporting it also...


Court rejects former President Trump's effort to withhold January 6 records
Duration: 08:42 47 mins ago

A federal appeals court judge denied former President Donald Trump's request to conceal documents related to the end of his presidency. CBS News correspondent Zak Hudak joins CBSN AM with more on this and the latest on the House select committee's investigation into the Capitol riot.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... vi-AAS4hR6

[Fun CH]

I ‘believe’ this committee is completely political and in no way searching for the truth. First off it has no ranking member and is therefore illegitimate from the get go. I’m sure the most popular President in history will be fine!

the question I asked was this;

"Want do you believe Ken? Do you believe that Trump really won the election?"

Nice deflection.

The committee was clear that they didn't want those ranking members who may have been complicit in the "big lie" and the January 6th riot to participate. Only two other Republicans stepped up after Trump wanted to freeze out the committee.

The public has already seen a few of the incriminating documents and we all heard Trump claiming election fraud if he looses even before the election.

Here is a quote before the votes were in.

"“We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election. We will never let them do it. Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!”

Notice he is correct about one thing here, which is that votes cannot be cast after the polls are closed and they weren't.

But votes can be counted after the poles close, as always.

But the bottom line is, while those that broke into the capital on Jan 6th were being investigated and arrested, Trump was collecting millions of dollars by selling the "big lie".

He could have preemptively pardoned every one of those people.

He choose not to and now many are rotting in prison simply because they believed in a lie.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do ... 44b979bcec

"Supreme Court rejects Trump election challenge cases"

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.

The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising but ends months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.

Some of the justices, however, had strong feelings about the court’s decision not to hear two cases from Pennsylvania that had been particularly contentious in the battleground state. The cases involved an appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision requiring election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrived up to three days after the election. Three of the nine justices said they would have heard the case, which would not have affected the election’s outcome.

Justice Clarence Thomas called the cases an “ideal opportunity” to address an important question whether state lawmakers or state courts get the last word about the manner in which federal elections are carried out. And he called it “befuddling” and “inexplicable” that his colleagues were declining to weigh in.

“We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” he wrote.

Thomas cited the expansion of mail-in voting as another reason to take the case and said “fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots.” Trump had made claims of massive fraud in the vastly expanded use of mailed in ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic, but courts found no evidence to substantiate those claims.

Pennsylvania lawmakers, for their part, made changes to the state’s election laws in response to the pandemic but left in place a Nov. 3 deadline to receive absentee ballots. Democrats sued, and Pennsylvania’s highest court cited the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and United States Postal Service delays in extending the deadline for mailed-in ballots to be received.

Republicans had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put that extension on hold ahead of the election. But in October, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to her seat, the justices split 4-4 over doing so, keeping the three-day extension for receiving ballots in place.

In practice, however, because of the ongoing lawsuit, those late-arriving ballots were separated out and have not yet been counted. The state has said that ultimately, fewer than 10,000 ballots were received during those three days. That small number of ballots would not have altered the outcome of the presidential election in the state, which former President Donald Trump lost by some 80,000 votes.

Pennsylvania officials had argued that the case was moot because the state’s election results had already been certified. Republicans argued the justices should take the case to provide guidance for future elections. In addition to Thomas, two other justices — Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — agreed.

Those three justices and Justice Brett Kavanaugh had been the four justices who previously would have put the ballot deadline extension on hold. As is typical, neither Kavanaugh nor Barrett, each of whom might have provided a fourth vote needed for the court to take the case, wrote to explain why they declined to hear the case.

“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election...But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections,” Alito wrote. He said the cases “call out for review.”

Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf, wrote on Twitter after the court’s action: “It’s time to move on".

[dorankj]

Haha Ray, I’m saying our current President will be fine since he’s so popular (81 m, Obama and Clinton are green with envy!)

[pasayten]

I ‘believe’ this committee is completely political and in no way searching for the truth. First off it has no ranking member and is therefore illegitimate from the get go. I’m sure the most popular President in history will be fine!

Sorry Ken... Not the most bigly popular... Many other presidents have/had higher average appproval ratings for their presidency... Trump is down a ways...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... val_rating

[dorankj]

I ‘believe’ this committee is completely political and in no way searching for the truth. First off it has no ranking member and is therefore illegitimate from the get go. I’m sure the most popular President in history will be fine!

[Fun CH]

If you think there’s only one side ‘creating a narrative’ you show your bias. That article posted is certainly full of it, quite the ‘narrative’ there!

I don't think that only side is creating a narrative. And I know that my bias is always showing. But this isn't about me, is it?

This is about the "big lie" that was being planned before the results of the 2020 election were even in.

How do I know?

I look at the facts. And the fact is that Trump's COS gave the Jan 6th committee documents that shows that to be true. They are there for all to see.

Want do you believe Ken? Do you believe that Trump really won the election?

[dorankj]

If you think there’s only one side ‘creating a narrative’ you show your bias. That article posted is certainly full of it, quite the ‘narrative’ there!

[Fun CH]

Sad thing is that people believe that election lie he spins and weaves. One of the good things he did was fast track the vaccine and mentioned at a recent rally that he had received the booster (after his Covid infection and the first two shots).

The crowd booed him.

I guess when you create a narrative where up is down and down is up, that's what you can expect.

You reap what you sow. Nothing new there.

[pasayten]

Trump says he's holding a news conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 6, the anniversary of the Capitol riot

bmetzger@insider.com (Bryan Metzger) - 7h ago

Former President Donald Trump says he's holding a news conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 6, 2022.
Trump announced the event, which falls on the anniversary of the Capitol siege, in a statement on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced plans to commemorate the day as well.
Former President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he will be hosting a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on January 6, exactly one year after a mob of his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

"Why isn't the Unselect Committee of highly partisan political hacks investigating the CAUSE of the January 6th protest, which was the rigged Presidential Election of 2020?" Trump wrote in a statement.

Trump was apparently referring to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, which has interviewed at least 300 people and recently uncovered shocking text messages from Donald Trump Jr., Fox News hosts, and lawmakers to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on the day of the attack.

The former president went on to say that the committee wants to "stay as far away from" claims of a rigged 2020 presidential election as possible, before asking supporters to "look at what is going on now" in several US states, though it was unclear what Trump was referring to.

He went on to castigate "RINOs" — an acronym for "Republican in Name Only" — presumably referring to his opponents within the party, such as Republican Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who sit on the January 6 committee.

"In many ways a RINO is worse than a Radical Left Democrat," Trump said, "because you don't know where they are coming from and you have no idea how bad they really are for our Country."


"The good news is there are fewer and fewer RINOs left as we elect strong Patriots who love America," he added. Trump has endorsed a primary challenger to Cheney, while he and other Republicans have moved to punish 13 House Republicans who bucked party leadership and voted for a bipartisan infrastructure bill in November.

"I will be having a news conference on January 6th at Mar-a-Lago to discuss all of these points, and more," he concluded. "Until then, remember, the insurrection took place on November 3rd, it was the completely unarmed protest of the rigged election that took place on January 6th."

In contrast to Trump's claims, many of his supporters were armed when they stormed the Capitol nearly a year ago. Roughly 140 officers were injured in the attack, while 5 people died on that day. Officer Michael Fanone, a DC police officer who responded to the riot, detailed in July how he was dragged and beaten unconscious by Trump loyalists.

Over 700 people have been charged in connection with the riot.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a "Dear Colleague" letter on Monday that Congress would seek to commemorate the events of that day with a "full program of events."

Those events, according to Pelosi, will include a discussions with historians about "the narrative of that day," a chance for members of Congress to share experiences and reflections from that day, and vigils. She also said the events will be livestreamed.

"As always, we will continue to work with the House Historian to establish and preserve our records in this regard," Pelosi said.

The White House has also said it plans to commemorate that day, though no details have been provided as of now. The US Senate is scheduled to be in session on January 6, though at least one senator has expressed reservations about those plans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAS1I8w

[pasayten]

January 6: How the House select committee finally exposed Trump's empire of lies
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN - Yesterday 9:15 PM

If politics still turned on truth and facts, this would be the week when the lie-filled foundations of Donald Trump's movement imploded, destroying his apparent dream of a return to power after the 2024 election.

But it is the ex-President's greatest, most subversive victory that his empire of falsehoods will surely survive new disclosures that lay bare his own abuses of power and the voter-mocking deceit of his political and media enablers.

While there has already been a steady accumulation of shocking evidence of Trump's coup attempt on January 6 and the emptiness of his election fraud claims, recent days put the saga into a horrifying new light. They brought the clearest indicators yet that the entire Make America Great Again infrastructure and Trump's potential next White House campaign rest on hogwash and the whitewashing of history.

The House select committee probing the January 6 insurrection has released fresh details of the elaborate behind-the-scenes plot to subvert the certification of President Joe Biden's election. There's embarrassing new evidence of how conservative media stars were privately alarmed by the attack by Trump's mob but quickly reverted to amplifying his lies to millions of Americans they willfully deceived. And a major new Associated Press survey of 2020 swing states contested by Trump found cases of voter fraud were sparse and far from the nationwide conspiracy he claims. There are separate reports that three Florida residents were recently arrested and charged with election fraud -- two of whom were registered Republicans.

This week will be remembered for Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the vice chair of the House committee, bringing receipts that exposed the hypocrisy of Trump's extended orbit.

Texts from Republican lawmakers, Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News prime-time anchors to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows show that they knew the attack on the Capitol was a disaster and wanted it to stop.

Yet those same conservative heroes are part of a political media operation that spent the last 11 months obscuring what really happened, in many cases denying the truth of Biden's election win and fueling lies about voter fraud that are feeding anti-democratic extremism. All to preserve a meal ticket named Trump.

In another development fraught with chilling implications, the committee revealed that Meadows wrote in an email that the National Guard would be present to "protect pro Trump people" on January 6. It was the latest example of a habit of weaponizing sacred American institutions for Trump's political gain.

The former President, meanwhile, encapsulated perverted political values that now rule much of the Republican Party and will likely produce its next presidential nominee. He recently declared that former Vice President Mike Pence had been "mortally wounded" because he had refused to steal the election during his ceremonial role in certifying Biden's victory. The ex-President was giving voice to a GOP incentive system that now rewards coup attempts and despotic behavior over honoring the Constitution.

The scale of the evidence coming to light this week is remarkable. But daily bombshells about what happened on January 6 often have the effect of diminishing the shock value of Trump-related outrages. And voters have pressing concerns like the rising cost of living and a pandemic that will shortly drag into a third year. Yet this week's developments are important not just because they chart the staggering breadth of Trump's election conspiracy. They are also exposing the lies on which his future political prospects are built -- and on which multiple Republican-run states have passed laws that make it harder to vote and easier to steal future elections.

Trump's biggest confidence trick
There has always been an aura of a con man about Trump, from his days as a bankruptcy-plagued real estate chancer who adopted a persona as the master of the art of the deal. His presidency opened with false claims about the size of his inauguration crowd that in retrospect augured an administration constructed on untruths -- or what his former senior aide Kellyanne Conway once dubbed "alternative facts."

It is now clear that his big lie that "frankly, we did win this election" is the most audacious and damaging confidence trick of his career.

A few Trump supporters are seeing the light, including Dustin Stockton, one of the organizers of the January 6 rally that preceded the insurrection, who found himself subpoenaed by the House committee -- and lacks the means to wage a legal battle like Trump's wealthy political guru Steve Bannon.

"Essentially, he abandons people when the going gets tough for people. And, you know, in some ways, it's embarrassing to think that in a lot of ways, we bought into what essentially turned out to be a bluff or a con," Stockton told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tuesday.

Yet Stockton is an outlier. Trump's popularity among Republican voters makes him the preemptive favorite for the GOP's 2024 nomination. He has the power to shape the political careers of those willing to accept his extremism -- as his raft of endorsements of midterm election candidates, nationally and in the states, shows. The Trump story, meanwhile, makes millions for conservative media outlets and stars -- giving them an incentive to promote a false alternative reality that has won over legions of viewers.

The mendacity of the conservative media propaganda machine was exposed by Cheney's reading aloud of texts sent to Meadows by several Fox News powerhouses, including Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, pleading with Meadows to get Trump to intervene on January 6.

"Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home," Ingraham texted. "This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy." Hannity asked the-then chief of staff whether Trump could make a statement that would tell the people at the Capitol to leave.

Both anchors later condemned the violence on January 6. But they have been among Fox News personalities who attack the investigation as a political vendetta against Trump rather than a probe into one of the worst assaults on democracy in American political history. And television disinformation is only a small part of the problem; social media networks teem with falsehoods about the election and boost Trump's lies in what is almost a fact-free zone.

Trump's Orwellian method
Trump's enablers have reacted to the disclosures of recent days by adopting the signature move of their leader -- spinning a false reality to excuse his behavior and mislead his supporters about what really happened.

Meadows, for instance, appeared on Hannity's show on Monday and concocted a story that contradicts reports that the former President had cooled his heels and watched on TV as his rioting supporters marauded through the Capitol.

"At the end of the day, they're going to find that not only did the President act, but he acted quickly," Meadows said. The former chief of staff has since been cited for criminal contempt by the House for refusing a subpoena to testify to the committee. His tactic was familiar from previous Trump scandals, as he pivoted away from the truth to create a more palatable tale for Trump supporters that absolved the ex-President of culpability.

The approach recalled Trump's own when his pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky to open an investigation into then-candidate Biden and his son Hunter came out. The ex-President simply insisted that their call was "perfect," even though a White House transcript showed repeated abuses of power as he used military aid as a carrot -- a transgression that led to his first impeachment.

This Trump gambit -- also used by conservative news outlets every day -- recalls the party's reality-defying "War is Peace" slogan in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four." Trump explained his method in a less literal way in 2018 when instructing followers to distrust their own eyes and non-partisan media and to believe only him. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening," he said.

This week's revelations have been damning for Trump, his former aides and the conservative media propagandists who sustain him.

But if history is any guide, the truth will not bring him down.

[dorankj]

And Alf, Meadows texts were altered by Shiff but don’t let truth get in the way of your righteous indignation, I’m sure “big cheese’s” aren’t burdened with actual facts.

[dorankj]

Those people texted exactly what they were saying publicly, consistent condemnation of lawless behavior like all the other riots and property destruction and killings that happened all 2020. You’ve fallen for an attempted outing that actually proves it wasn’t a coordinated ‘armed insurrection’ like certain media still pretends from a non-republican who’s hoping for blue support and is NOT a ‘ranking member’ as required to make this any sort of legitimate commission. Funny also, there are many people on video inciting entering the capital who haven’t been arrested, why is that? Maybe you all should really broaden your news sources, methinks some doth protest too much!

[mister_coffee]

You don't show up to a peaceful protest with spears, baseball bats, hockey sticks, and pepper spray.

I just don't see how you pass around your secret plan to overthrow the lawfully elected government on PowerPoint. And have outsiders briefing people who need to cooperate on the plan. It just offends my sense of professionalism and basic competence. If we are to have evil overlords, is it too much to ask that they at least be competent?

Also all of those people flunked basic constitutional law. Under the constitution and the electoral count act if we don't choose a new president by the end of their term, the current president is still out and the speaker of the house takes over. So this was a lot of work just to get Nancy Pelosi in the Oval Office.

[Fun CH]

You may want to broaden your news sources to gain a little perspective.

took your advice and it did broaden my perspective.

[dorankj]

So it WASN'T a ‘armed insurrection’ worse than ‘9-11, Pearl Harbor or the Lincoln assassination’! You may want to broaden your news sources to gain a little perspective.

[pasayten]

Opinion: Trump’s PowerPoint coup plotters were crackpots. We may not be so lucky next time.

Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Today at 5:42 p.m. EST

The revolution will not be televised. But it will be available in PowerPoint format.

This particular PowerPoint Plot will contain boxes and crazy arrows pointing every which way, the odd typo, a bizarre conspiracy involving a 1976 murder by “U.S.-backed police,” the wild allegation that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system constituting a national security emergency,” and the inevitable conclusion, highlighted twice in yellow and in all caps: “TRUMP WINS!!” And, above all, it will be based on the work of a treasure hunter who led an unsuccessful search for the biblical Ark of the Covenant and claimed a “magical” sword proved the ancient Romans sailed to Canada.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection has discovered that a 38-page PowerPoint deck landed in the inbox of then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows suggesting that President Donald Trump announce a “national security emergency” and “declare electronic voting in all states invalid” — thereby overturning the 2020 election. Meadows is ignoring a subpoena to testify about matters including the PowerPoint and his email asserting that the National Guard was on standby on Jan. 6 to “protect pro Trump people.”


For that, Meadows is expected Tuesday to be held in contempt of Congress. But a review of a publicly available version of the PowerPoint similar to the one in the committee’s hands — as well as its authors — suggests Meadows would more properly be held in contempt of competence.

Not for the first time, we are reminded that American democracy was saved by Team Trump’s buffoonery. They had the will, and possibly the means, to overthrow the 2020 election, but the would-be coup was attempted by clowns: Sidney “Kraken” Powell, the MyPillow guy, Rudy Giuliani of Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and now one Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.

The New York Times reported that the Meadows PowerPoint “appears to be based on the theories” of Pulitzer, a “Texas entrepreneur and self-described inventor.” Pulitzer told my Post colleagues that he contributed material for the PowerPoint, which was circulated by a retired colonel who has worked in cybersecurity, firearms and distilleries — an example, the Post reported, of the “cast of fringe personalities” Trump deployed “to sabotage the U.S. democratic process.”


When it comes to eccentricity, Pulitzer takes the prize. Years ago, under the name Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, he invented the CueCat, a feline-shaped bar code scanner that was a brief sensation before it collapsed amid savage reviews by tech writers and earned a spot on Time magazine’s “50 worst inventions” and PC World’s “25 worst tech products of all time.”

Philyaw/Pulitzer then became a treasure hunter for the Lost Ark and landed on the History Channel for his claims about a Roman sword in Nova Scotia that many believe to be a hoax. He also sold quartz crystals of “powerful spiritual significance" and wrote a series of books called “Commander’s Lost Treasures,” including one titled “How to Cut Off Your Arm and Eat Your Dog: Plus, Other Recipes for Survival.” He kept up with his prolific career as an inventor, too (or at least as a patent applicant), proposing things we never knew we needed, such as “a vibrating finger cuff for use in performing a finger prick.”

But his greatest invention came after the 2020 election, when he pronounced himself a voting expert, claiming he could identify fraudulent ballots by detecting, among other things, Chinese ink and fibers. Trump allies in Georgia invited him to testify before the state legislature, where he claimed to have hacked into Georgia’s voting system. Georgia’s (Republican) secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, called Pulitzer a “failed treasure hunter” and his claims “patently false.”

But Trump’s chief of staff was happy to listen.


“KEY Issue: China has leveraged financial, non-governmental and foreign allies including Venezuela to acquire INFLUENCE and CONTROL US Voting Infrastructure in at least 28 States,” proclaimed the PowerPoint based on Pulitzer’s work. “KEY Issue in 2020: Critical Infrastructure control utilized as part of ongoing globalist/socialist operation to subvert the will of United States Voters and install a China ally.” The deck alleged without evidence that Jorge Rodríguez, a former Venezuelan vice president, was a “likely mastermind.”

After the failed coup, Pulitzer moved on — to the Arizona “audit,” for which he offered his services as a “document pattern recognition expert” who could sniff out fake ballots. Remember the search for “bamboo” fibers to prove fake ballots came from China? That was inspired by Pulitzer, who helped the “Cyber Ninjas” in their hapless Arizona exploits.

It’s tempting to dismiss charlatans such as Pulitzer, and Trump aides such as Meadows who relied on crackpots. But it’s little comfort that democracy was saved only by the bumbling of the coup plotters.

Next time, we may not be so lucky. And if you don’t think that’s a real threat, I’d like to sell you an ancient Roman sword I found near Halifax.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -crackpot/

[Fun CH]

^ Articles like this always leave out the fact the in Trump's Jan 6th speech, he did call for a peaceful march.

His words.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

My opinion; Trump is very good at covering his tracks, throwing people under the bus, and employing fall guys to give the appearance of plausible deniability.

[pasayten]

Donald Trump claims his Jan. 6 speech in which he told supporters to 'fight like hell' was 'extremely calming'

Business Insider - ashoaib@insider.com (Alia Shoaib) - 15h ago

In the speech, the outgoing president told his supporters to march to the Capitol and "fight like hell."
The former president told Fox News said he had "nothing to hide" from the Jan. 6 congressional committee.
Former President Donald Trump claimed that a speech he gave to supporters on January 6 before the Capitol riot was "extremely calming."

"I have nothing to hide," Trump told Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Friday night, referring to the congressional panel investigating the Capitol riot.

"I wasn't involved in that and if you look at my words and what I said in the speech, they were extremely calming, actually."

In the 70-minute speech on January 6, Trump repeated false claims that the 2020 election had been "stolen" from him and encouraged his followers to march to the Capitol.

"You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong," Trump said in the speech.

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

In the interview with Laura Ingraham on Friday, Trump said the events on January 6 were a "protest" and that the hundreds of arrested rioters were "innocent."

"It was a protest. The insurrection took place on November 3rd, which was election day. This was a protest and a lot of innocent people are being hurt. A lot of innocent people are being injured," he said.

Trump also discussed his attempts to try and prevent the January 6 select committee from obtaining a tranche of executive branch documents relating to their investigation.

The former president asserted executive privilege over several of the documents.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled against Trump's request to block the committee from obtaining records.

Speaking to Laura Ingraham, Trump said he had "nothing to hide" but was asserting executive privilege as a principle.

"The biggest loser would be Biden, because if it ever changes, and I think it will, then he won't be able to use it with respect to Hunter [Biden] and all of the things that are going on that are so terrible. So I would think that he'd want to see this upheld, frankly," Trump said.

It's not clear what the former president was referring to about President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Trump also lashed out at congresswoman Liz Cheney, who is one of only two Republicans on the January 6 congressional committee.

The former president called her a "warmonger" and "not a Republican."

"I call it the un-select committee of Democrat partisans, it's ridiculous what's going on that," he said.

Read the original article on Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ws-2021-12

[mister_coffee]

I apparently am not an expert...

What I would think is that if you were committing a federal crime that you would be a little more discreet than having a 30+ page PowerPoint and hundreds of text messages about your plans.

And who even uses PowerPoint anymore? It is 2021, not 1994.