Sidney Powell Implicates Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Justice Alito In Plot To Overturn The Election

Sidney Powell suggested that the purpose of the 1/6 attack was to give time to Supreme Court Justice Alito to intervene and overturn the election.

Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise Were Involved In The Plot To Overturn The Election.

Video:



Powell suggested that the plan was for the insurrection to delay certifying the election so that Trump’s lawyers could file a 12th Amendment case to overturn the election.

McCarthy and Scalise were trying to deny Pelosi the ability to file an amicus brief in the case.

Powell said, “There had been inside goings-on in Congress whereby I believe it was Steve Scalise and McCarthy kept her from being an actual party. She wanted to work her way into the case, but somehow that didn’t happen. She got notice when we made our filing. She wanted to file an amicus brief, and then everything broke loose, and she had to speed up reconvening Congress to get the vote going before Justice Alito might issue an injunction.”

Sidney Powell is not a reliable narrator, but her point, if true, is that the purpose of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol was to buy time so that Justice Alito could intervene and block the certification of the election.

Trump and the Republicans were counting on the Supreme Court to overturn the election.

All the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together. The 1/6 attack was part of a seditious plot to overturn an election by stopping the certification and allowing the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to toss the election back to the states, which would have handed the presidency to Trump.

Elected Republicans should be facing criminal charges for this plot, and Kevin McCarthy has a whole lot more to answer for than a phone call with Trump on 1/6.

https://www.politicususa.com/2021/09/26/...e-election.html

The most important words are:

“Sidney Powell is not a reliable narrator. “

I don’t know a thing about politicusuas.com, be careful with sources.

So I clicked. Liberal bias.

Good catch. I saw it on twitter and thought it was politico when I posted... smh. Still won't surprise me if it is true.

About us

Jason Easley: Founder/Co-Publisher

Jason Easley is the Managing Editor and Senior White House & Congressional correspondent for politicusuas. His reporting has been featured on The Ed Schultz Show, and The Randi Rhodes Show...

The Ed Schultz Show Says a lot about his reporting.

History

Founded in 2008, PoliticusUSA is a political commentary site that provides news, analysis, and opinions from a progressive perspective. Jason Easley serves as the Publisher/Editor-in-Chief/Senior White House and Congressional correspondent. PoliticusUSA breaks the news into the following categories: Editorials, Politicus Radio, Interviews, The Resistance, and Liberal Nation Rising.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

According to its About Page, the founder of PoliticusUSA is Jason Easley, and they state that “not a drop of investment capital was used in the start-up. We do not seek grants or funding from foundations. We do not accept advertising dollars from any outlet that would have even the opportunity to dictate our coverage.” The website is funded through online 3rd party advertising.
Analysis / Bias

In review, PoliticusUSA’s editorials tend to lean strongly left and present a progressive view of the world with frequent anti-Trump articles such as: “It’s Time To Publicly Shame Trump And The Russia Scandal Liars” and “Vote With Your Remote: Tell The Media To Stop Pushing Trump Caravan Lies.” In addition, PoliticusUSA typically is very well sourced to credible media outlets such as Wall Street Journal, CNN, USAToday, Toronto Star, Reuters, The Hill, Washington Post, and New York Times.

PoliticusUSA has been criticized for utilizing sensational/misleading headlines that do not always match the story’s reality. For example, in this story, “Trump Said CIA Lies But Then Winks as He Makes Putin’s BFF New Fave as SecState,” the author makes the claim that Tillerson is “not only a fossil fuel CEO but one who has very, very close ties with Vladimir Putin, the guy the CIA says got Donald Trump elected president – for what looks like a little quid pro quo.” Unfortunately, the author does not provide a hyperlinked source to validate this opinion.

In general, story selection always favors the left and denigrates the right, particularly former President Trump. All news stories are well-sourced, though headlines tend to be sensational and may be misleading at times.
Failed Fact Checks

“Oklahoma 100% coronavirus test rate after Trump Tulsa rally.” – False (correction issued)
The National Cancer Institute has “admitted” that “cannabis kills cancer.” – False
Trump Trying To Get Mike Pence Impeached’ Claim – No Evidence

Overall, we rate PoliticusUSA borderline extreme Left Biased in wording and editorial positions that always favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks, frequent misleading one-sided commentary, and occasional poor sourcing. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 06/21/2021)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politicususa/

Sidney Powell was on StewPeters.tv.

You can look that up as well, it is right biased.

This came up when I searched. It must be part of red voice media.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-voice-media/

Sidney Powell is self destructing as a lawyer if she continues.

She is at risk of being disbarred because of the Michigan “lawsuit” fiasco.

A libel or slander charge from McCarthy, Scalise or Alito won’t help her cause.

She might have the goods on them... McCarthy we know was in it up to his neck.

What she is quoted as saying and what the article implies that she suggested don't really line up to me. They were filing a case at the Supreme Court. The insurrection happened. They weren't necessarily connected. The "planning" had to do with the desired legal proceeding, not the insurrection as far as I can tell. It would appear to me that the insurrection actually torpedoed the Constitutional challenge by galvanizing the left and those on the fence allowing Pelosi to rush a vote. If Trump intended the insurrection, he appears, to me, to have screwed himself. I suppose that's Karma.

Yeah, that lost me. Especially the Alito angle.

Don't really care what she "suggested".. let me know if she can prove anything. Then you will have my attention.

... with the caveat that I wouldn't wait for the likes of her to prove anything. Her time in the spotlight was all about her not proving a single thing.

If it turns out to be true, it will eventually come out.

Have you ever noticed that if a site says anything negative about Trump or points out what's going on with the Jan. 6th investigation, which thus far isn't favorable to him, it's always labeled as "liberal bias"?

Here is the executive summary from the Senate report itself and a link to the whole report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Investigation
On January 22, 2021, the New York Times reported that Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the former
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division, sought
to involve DOJ in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and plotted with thenPresident Trump to oust Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who reportedly refused
Trump’s demands.1 On January 23, 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had urged
DOJ to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate President Biden’s victory.2
These reports followed Trump’s months-long effort to undermine the results of the election,
which culminated in the violent insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary immediately launched an investigation into
Trump’s reported efforts to enlist DOJ in his election subversion scheme. On January 23, 2021,
the Committee asked DOJ to produce documents related to these efforts. DOJ cooperated with
the Committee’s request, producing several hundred pages of calendars, emails, and other
documents in the ensuing months.
On May 20, 2021, following DOJ’s production of emails from former White House Chief
of Staff Mark Meadows to Rosen asking DOJ to investigate several debunked election fraud
claims, the Committee asked the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for
additional Trump White House records related to Trump’s attempts to secure DOJ’s help in
overturning the election results. The Committee’s request sought White House records between
November 3, 2020 and the end of Trump’s presidency related to meetings and communications
between and among White House and DOJ officials. NARA has not responded to date, and has
represented to the Committee that the delay in transitioning electronic Trump records from the
White House to NARA may prevent the Committee from obtaining a response for several more
months.
In addition to obtaining and reviewing documents, the Committee interviewed key former
DOJ personnel, including Rosen, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard
Donoghue, and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Byung Jin (“BJay”)
Pak. DOJ and the White House authorized these witnesses to testify about their internal
communications without restriction, citing the Committee’s “compelling legislative interests …
in understanding these extraordinary events: namely, the question whether former President
Trump sought to cause the Department to use its law enforcement and litigation authorities to

1 Katie Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times
(Jan. 22, 2021).
2
Jess Bravin & Sadie Gurman, Trump Pressed Justice Department to Go Directly to Supreme Court to Overturn
Election Results, Wall St. J. (Jan. 23, 2021).
2
advance his personal political interests with respect to the results of the 2020 presidential
election.”3
The Committee also requested to interview Clark, whom DOJ authorized to testify on the
same terms as the other former DOJ officials. DOJ authorized Clark’s appearance on July 26,
2021. More than two months after DOJ authorized him to testify without restriction, Clark still
has not agreed to the Committee’s request that he sit for a voluntary interview.
B. Key Findings
The Committee continues to investigate Trump’s efforts to involve DOJ in his election
subversion scheme, including by pursuing Trump White House records that NARA has thus far
been unable to produce and additional witness interviews as appropriate. Given the gravity of the
misconduct the Committee has uncovered to date, however—and in the interest of making a
public record of Trump’s efforts to compromise DOJ’s independence—the Committee is
releasing this interim staff report. The report makes six primary findings:
FINDING 1: President Trump repeatedly asked DOJ leadership to endorse his false
claims that the election was stolen and to assist his efforts to overturn the election results.
Beginning on the day former Attorney General William Barr announced his resignation and
continuing almost until the January 6 insurrection, Trump directly and repeatedly asked DOJ’s
acting leadership to initiate investigations, file lawsuits on his behalf, and publicly declare the
2020 election “corrupt.” Documents and testimony confirm that Rosen, and in some cases other
senior DOJ leaders, participated in several calls and meetings where Trump directly raised
discredited claims of election fraud and asked why DOJ was not doing more to address them.
These calls and meetings included:
 December 15, 2020 – Oval Office meeting including Rosen and Donoghue
 December 23, 2020 – Trump-Rosen Call
 December 24, 2020 – Trump-Rosen Call
 December 27, 2020 – Trump-Rosen-Donoghue Call
 December 28, 2020 – Trump-Donoghue Call
 December 30, 2020 – Trump-Rosen Call
 December 31, 2020 – Oval Office meeting including Rosen and Donoghue
 January 3, 2021 – Oval Office meeting including Rosen and Donoghue
 January 3, 2021 – Trump-Donoghue Call
In attempting to enlist DOJ for personal, political purposes in an effort to maintain his
hold on the White House, Trump grossly abused the power of the presidency. He also arguably

3 Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Clark (July 26, 2021) (on file with the
Committee); Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Richard Donoghue (July 26, 2021) (on
file with the Committee); Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Byung J. Pak (July 26,
2021) (on file with the Committee); Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Rosen
(July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee).
3
violated the criminal provisions of the Hatch Act, which prevent any person—including the
President—from commanding federal government employees to engage in political activity.4
FINDING 2: White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Acting Attorney
General Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating
longstanding restrictions on White House-DOJ communications about specific lawenforcement matters. Meadows asked Rosen to have DOJ investigate at least four categories of
false election fraud claims that Trump and his allies were pushing. Between December 29 and
January 1, Meadows asked Rosen to have DOJ:
 Investigate various discredited claims of election fraud in Georgia that the Trump
campaign was simultaneously advancing in a lawsuit that the Georgia Supreme Court
had refused to hear on an expedited basis;
 Investigate false claims of “signature match anomalies” in Fulton County, Georgia,
even though Republican state elections officials had made clear “there has been no
evidence presented of any issues with the signature matching process.”5
 Investigate a theory known as “Italygate,” which was promoted by an ally of the
President’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and which held that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and an Italian IT contractor used military satellites to
manipulate voting machines and change Trump votes to Biden votes. Meadows also
asked DOJ to meet with Giuliani on Italygate and other election fraud claims.
 Investigate a series of claims of election fraud in New Mexico that had been widely
refuted and in some cases rejected by the courts, including a claim that Dominion
Voting Systems machines caused late-night “vote dumps” for Democratic candidates.
These requests violated longstanding policies limiting communications between White
House and DOJ officials on specific law enforcement matters.6 The White House and DOJ
established these policies following Watergate to protect DOJ’s investigations and prosecutions
from partisan political interference and to prevent White House officials from corrupting DOJ
for their own personal gain.
FINDING 3: After personally meeting with Trump, Jeffrey Bossert Clark pushed
Rosen and Donoghue to assist Trump’s election subversion scheme—and told Rosen he
would decline Trump’s potential offer to install him as Acting Attorney General if Rosen
agreed to aid that scheme. Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to publicly announce that DOJ
was investigating election fraud and tell key swing state legislatures they should appoint

4 18 U.S.C. § 610.
5 GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (@GaSecofState), Twitter (Dec. 8, 2020, 7:55 a.m.),
https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1336293440338989060.
6 Memorandum from White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff, at 1 (Jan. 27, 2017); see
also Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder for Heads of Department Components, All United States
Attorneys, at 1 (May 11, 2009).
4
alternate slates of electors following certification of the popular vote. He did so following
personal communications with Trump, including at least one meeting that Clark attended in the
Oval Office without the knowledge of DOJ leadership.
On December 28, 2020, Clark emailed Rosen and Donoghue a draft letter addressed to
the Georgia Governor, General Assembly Speaker, and Senate President Pro Tempore. The letter
was titled “Georgia Proof of Concept” and Clark suggested replicating it in “each relevant state.”
The letter would have informed state officials that DOJ had “taken notice” of election
irregularities in their state and recommended calling a special legislative session to evaluate
these irregularities, determine who “won the most legal votes,” and consider appointing a new
slate of Electors. Clark’s proposal to wield DOJ’s power to override the already-certified popular
vote reflected a stunning distortion of DOJ’s authority: DOJ protects ballot access and ballot
integrity, but has no role in determining which candidate won a particular election.
Documents and testimony confirm that Donoghue and Rosen rejected Clark’s
recommendation but that Clark—potentially with the assistance of lower-level allies within
DOJ—continued to press his “Proof of Concept” for the next several days. Clark eventually
informed Rosen and Donoghue that Trump had offered to install him in Rosen’s place, and told
Rosen he would turn down Trump’s offer if Rosen would agree to sign the “Proof of Concept”
letter. Clark’s efforts culminated in an Oval Office meeting where Rosen, Donoghue, and Steven
Engel, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, informed Trump that
DOJ’s senior leaders would resign if Trump carried out his plans.
FINDING 4: Trump allies with links to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the
January 6 insurrection participated in the pressure campaign against DOJ. In addition to
Trump White House officials, including the President himself, outside Trump allies with ties to
the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection also pressured DOJ to help
overturn the election results. They included:
 U.S. Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, who
led the objection to counting Pennsylvania’s electoral votes on the House floor in the
hours immediately following the January 6 insurrection. Perry has acknowledged
introducing Clark to Trump, and documents and testimony confirm that he directly
communicated with Donoghue about his false Pennsylvania election fraud claims.
 Doug Mastriano, a Republican State Senator from Pennsylvania who participated in
Rudy Giuliani’s so-called election fraud “hearings,” spent thousands of dollars from
his campaign account to bus people to the January 6 “Save America Rally,” and was
present on the Capitol grounds as the insurrection unfolded. Documents show that,
like Perry, Mastriano directly communicated with Donoghue about his false election
fraud claims.
 Cleta Mitchell, a Trump campaign legal adviser, early proponent of Trump’s false
stolen election claims, and participant the January 2, 2021 call where Trump
5
pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.”
Mitchell emailed Meadows a copy of Trump’s lawsuit against Raffensperger and
offered to send DOJ 1,800 pages of supporting exhibits; Meadows sent the materials
to Rosen, asking DOJ to investigate.
FINDING 5: Trump forced the resignation of U.S. Attorney Byung Jin (“BJay”)
Pak, whom he believed was not doing enough to address false claims of election fraud in
Georgia. Trump then went outside the line of succession when naming an Acting U.S.
Attorney, bypassing First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Erskine and instead appointing
Bobby Christine because he believed Christine would “do something” about his election
fraud claims. U.S. Attorney Pak investigated and did not substantiate various claims of election
fraud advanced by Trump and his allies, including false claims that a videotape showed suitcases
of illegal ballots being tabulated at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. Trump accused Pak publicly and
privately of being a “Never Trumper” and told Rosen and Donoghue on January 3 that he wanted
to fire him. Trump relented when Donoghue argued that Pak already planned to resign, agreeing
not to fire Pak so long as he resigned the following day. Although First Assistant U.S. Attorney
(FAUSA) Erskine was next in the line of succession and Christine was already serving as U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, Trump told Donoghue he liked Christine and
thought he would “do something” about his election fraud claims.
FINDING 6: By pursuing false claims of election fraud before votes were certified,
DOJ deviated from longstanding practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in
the election. Prior to the 2020 general election, DOJ’s longstanding policy and practice was to
avoid taking overt steps in election fraud investigations until after votes were certified, in order
to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election. Then-Attorney General Barr weakened
this decades-long policy shortly before and after the 2020 election, including in a November 9,
2020 memo that directed prosecutors not to wait until after certification to investigate allegations
of voting irregularities that “could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an
individual State.” Consistent with this directive and following additional personal involvement
by Barr, DOJ took overt steps to investigate false claims of election fraud before certification in
one instance detailed to the Committee—and likely others.
***
The Committee’s investigation to date underscores how Trump’s efforts to use DOJ as a
means to overturn the election results was part of his interrelated efforts to retain the presidency
by any means necessary. As has been well-documented by other sources, Trump’s efforts to lay
the foundation of the “Big Lie” preceded the general election by several months; Attorney
General Barr inserted DOJ into that initial effort through various public remarks and actions
prior to November 3, 2020 that cast doubt on voting by mail procedures implemented to facilitate
exercise of the franchise during the worst public health crisis in a century. Concurrent with
Trump’s post-election attempts to weaponize DOJ, Trump also reportedly engaged in a separate
and equally aggressive pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to set aside the
electoral votes of contested states. This “back-up plan,” as it were, culminated on January 4—
one day after Clark’s final attempt to wrest control of DOJ from Rosen, and again in the Oval
6
Office—when Trump and outside attorney John Eastman attempted to convince Pence that he
could circumvent the certification through a procedural loophole in the Electoral Count Act.
7 All
of these efforts, in turn, created the disinformation ecosystem necessary for Trump to incite
almost 1,000 Americans to breach the Capitol in a violent
attempt to subvert democracy by
stopping the certification of a free and fair election.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

An article from the Wall Street Journal about trying to get the DOJ to file in the Supreme Court. And it has been reported else where that part of the Jan 6 protest was to hold off the certification of the election and Pelosi reconvened the session later that night and Pence certified-thus throwing a wrench into the plans of giving trump enough time to push somebody.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-press...ims-11611434369

Trump Pressed Justice Department to Go Directly to Supreme Court to Overturn Election Results
The former president dropped the efforts to replace the acting attorney general after top DOJ officials agreed to resign en masse in protest if he succeeded, people familiar said

Mr. Trump had considered installing another senior Justice Department official in place of then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.
PHOTO: SAMUEL CORUM/CNP/ZUMA PRESS
By Jess Bravin and Sadie Gurman
Updated Jan. 23, 2021 11:07 pm ET
PRINT
TEXT
636
WASHINGTON—In his last weeks in office, former President Donald Trump considered moving to replace the acting attorney general with another official ready to pursue unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and he pushed the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate President Biden’s victory, people familiar with the matter said.

Those efforts failed due to pushback from his own appointees in the Justice Department, who refused to file what they viewed as a legally baseless lawsuit in the Supreme Court. Later, other senior department officials threatened to resign en masse should Mr. Trump fire then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, according to several people familiar with the discussions.

Senior department officials, including Mr. Rosen, former Attorney General William Barr and former acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall refused to file the Supreme Court case, concluding that there was no basis to challenge the election outcome and that the federal government had no legal interest in whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden won the presidency, some of these people said. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, also opposed Mr. Trump’s idea, which was promoted by his outside attorneys, these people said.

“He wanted us, the United States, to sue one or more of the states directly in the Supreme Court,” a former administration official said. “The pressure got really intense” after a lawsuit Texas filed in the Supreme Court against four states Mr. Biden won was dismissed on Dec. 11, the official said. An outside lawyer working for Mr. Trump drafted a brief the then-president wanted the Justice Department to file, people familiar with the matter said, but officials refused.


Jeffrey Rosen at a news conference in October.
PHOTO: YURI GRIPAS/PRESS POOL
After his Supreme Court plan got nowhere, Mr. Trump explored another plan—replacing Mr. Rosen as acting attorney general with Jeffrey Clark, a Trump ally in the department who had expressed a willingness to use the department’s power to help the former president continue his unsuccessful legal battles contesting the election results, these people said.

WSJ NEWSLETTER
Notes on the News
The news of the week in context, with Tyler Blint-Welsh.

Enter your email
SIGN UP
Mr. Trump backed off that plan after senior Justice Department leadership threatened to resign en masse if the president removed Mr. Rosen, people familiar with the discussions said.

Weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election, Mr. Trump had predicted the outcome could be determined by the Supreme Court; that possibility was a reason he gave for rapid confirmation of his third appointee to the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in September.

“I think this [election] will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sept. 23. “Having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation.”

As challenges to the election results went nowhere in multiple state and federal courts, Mr. Trump and his allies placed their hopes in a lawsuit that Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton planned to file directly in the Supreme Court against four states that voted for Mr. Biden. The suit alleged that Texans’ rights were violated because Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin failed to follow their own election laws in the November vote.

OTHER WASHINGTON COVERAGE
Justice Department Makes Quiet Push on Antitrust Enforcement October 9, 2021
U.S.-China Trade Talks Take Early Steps October 8, 2021
Texas Abortion Law Again In Effect After Appeals Court Temporarily Pauses Injunction Against State October 8, 2021
Before the Texas suit was filed, a group of Republican state attorneys general spoke with Mr. Barr about getting the Justice Department to back the claim, particularly if the Supreme Court asked for the department’s views on the case, people familiar with the discussions said.

Mr. Barr consulted with Mr. Wall, who is the government’s advocate before the Supreme Court. Mr. Wall told Mr. Barr that Texas’s lawsuit was likely to fail because the state lacked legal standing to challenge other states’ administration of their own laws, the people said, accurately anticipating the grounds the Supreme Court ultimately cited in dismissing the case.

Mr. Barr told the Republican officials that the department couldn't be counted on to support their legal claim if the Supreme Court sought its opinion, these people said.

Representatives of Mr. Paxton and the Republican Attorneys General Association couldn't immediately be reached.

After the Texas case was dismissed on Dec. 11, Mr. Trump began pushing for the Justice Department to file its own lawsuit against the states directly in the Supreme Court, the people said. Frustrated that his wishes weren’t being implemented, Mr. Trump at one point planned to bypass the attorney general and telephone Mr. Wall directly, these people said.


Mr. Trump didn’t follow through with a phone call, but one of his outside lawyers sent over a draft legal brief he wished the department to file with the Supreme Court, these officials said.

After Mr. Barr resigned shortly before Christmas, Mr. Trump pushed Mr. Rosen to authorize the lawsuit. At Mr. Rosen’s request, the solicitor general’s office prepared a brief memo with talking points he could use in an effort to explain to Mr. Trump why the lawsuit wasn’t legally viable, the people said.

Mr. Clark denied involvement in a plan to oust Mr. Rosen, which was earlier reported by the New York Times. Mr. Rosen couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

“My practice is to rely on sworn testimony to assess disputed factual claims,” Mr. Clark said in a statement sent to The Wall Street Journal after the publication of the story in the Times. “There were no ‘maneuver[s].’ There was a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president. It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions.…Observing legal privileges, which I will adhere to even if others will not, prevents me from divulging specifics regarding the conversation.”

Mr. Trump has defended his efforts to change the election results by alleging, without evidence, that there was widespread fraud as an attempt to “honor” the votes of those who supported him and ensure Americans “can have faith” in the electoral process.

Mr. Trump’s push to employ the Justice Department in that effort drew sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers.

“This powerful report shows how Trump came within a hair’s width of taking down our democracy,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said Saturday. “Now my Senate colleagues must show spine and break silent complicity—and vote to convict,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s plan to orchestrate a last-minute change in the department was part of the broader effort by the former president and his allies to involve the Justice Department in their attempts to cast doubt on Mr. Biden’s November victory.

White House officials had pressured Atlanta’s top federal prosecutor to resign before Georgia’s Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections because Mr. Trump claimed he wasn’t doing enough to investigate unproven claims of election fraud there, the Journal previously reported, a matter now under investigation by the department’s inspector general, a person with knowledge of the probe said.

From the Archives
Listen: Trump Pressures Georgia’s Raffensperger to ‘Find’ Him Votes
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

Listen: Trump Pressures Georgia’s Raffensperger to ‘Find’ Him Votes
Listen: Trump Pressures Georgia’s Raffensperger to ‘Find’ Him Votes
In a weekend phone call, President Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state and repeatedly made unfounded assertions about voting irregularities.
Atlanta U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak stepped down Jan. 4, the day after news organizations published a recording of a call between Mr. Trump and Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, in which Mr. Trump pushed the state officials to “find” enough votes to overturn the November presidential election results.

Mr. Trump acknowledged the call with Mr. Raffensperger, tweeting: “He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!” Mr. Raffensperger tweeted back: “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true. The truth will come out.”

After two recounts and one audit of ballot signatures, Mr. Raffensperger had concluded there was no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the results and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, also a Republican, certified Mr. Biden’s narrow win in the state on Nov. 20.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Capital Journal
Scoops, analysis and insights driving Washington from the WSJ's D.C. bureau.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
In Washington, Mr. Rosen became acting attorney general after Mr. Barr resigned Dec. 23. Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr’s relationship had become strained after Mr. Barr’s public assertion that the Justice Department hadn’t found evidence of widespread voter fraud that could reverse Mr. Biden’s victory, including claims of fraud, ballot destruction and voting-machine manipulation.

Even before Mr. Barr’s departure, Mr. Trump had called Mr. Rosen to the White House to pressure him to appoint a special counsel to investigate unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and voting-machine manufacturer Dominion, the people said, a move Mr. Barr had concluded was unnecessary.

Mr. Trump and his attorneys had lost dozens of cases in courts at all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In the five weeks after Election Day, the Trump campaign and other Republicans lost at least 40 times in six pivotal states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In several other cases, the campaign or allies withdrew claims after filing them.

Mr. Rosen refused, reiterating Mr. Barr’s conclusion that there was no widespread fraud.

—Timothy Puko and Byron Tau contributed to this article.

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com and Sadie Gurman at sadie.gurman@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications
Former President Trump exchanged tweets with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger the same day a recording of their conversation was leaked to the news media. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the tweets were issued the next day. (Corrected on Jan. 25, 2021)

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the January 25, 2021, print edition as 'Trump Leaned on DOJ Over Vote-Fraud Claims.'

Your last two posts created a bit of a conundrum. I certainly don't like hearing the information that they contain. I don't know how any Patriotic American could. But I like the fact you posted the information for those whose news sources do not wish to actually report the truth. So I could not simply hit the like button as a response but wanted you to know I appreciate the information being posted.

My feeling is that this was planned, the end game was to get it to the house of representatives, where Trump held a 26-24 advantage. Each state gets a vote.

It was one of the possibilities mentioned before the election, and one of those hypothetical situations that political junkies and college professors like to ponder.

If you know anything about election history, it is very similar to the election of 1876. But the 1876 election was a lot closer.

My internal conspiracy theorist says it was the "Bannon" plan..

Of all the things I have witnessed in the US during my time.

Four events stand out.

JFK's assassination.
Kent State
9/11
Jan. 6th

The first three were events that were brought about by external forces and were singular in cause.

Jan 6th was an internal attack on the core principal of what America stands for. The right to vote in a democracy through a valid and free election process. Once the election is certified and is validated by the courts.

We have the transfer of power.

All of this was corrupted by a man who refused to accept the process which has define us since the first election.

He made every attempt possible to take over the country.


In the history of the world this would have been viewed as a coup. And if the players were caught. They would have been executated.

Donald trump is a traitor plain and simple.

What happens and how this all shakes out is politics at it's worse.

Nothing changes the facts of what happened on Jan. 6th.

Yet it was stated plainly he tried to get it in front of the SCOTUS where he had a stacked court which he helped appoint. You see, when you think the entire world revolves around quid pro quo that's how your mind operates.

Just as sites and posts are listed the other way.

It is what it is.

'It's evil': Jim Acosta reacts to Trump's remark during interview

But Diam said it was just a bunch of nice soccer moms?

Those that label the 1/6 commission and anything associated with it as Liberal, haven't taken the time to review the mass amount of evidence and videos out there that show, without a doubt that it was a clear attempt to overthrow an election and take over the country and its leader was Trump..

They don't want to believe their own damn eyes...

How anyone can defend his actions and the actions of those that tried to overthrow the election on 1/6 is beyond me.

There in lies the greatest hypocrisy.

No true patriot of America can view Jan, 6th as any other than what is was.

A coordinated attempt to overthrow the government.

Imagine if Obama was the president and all of that had taken place.

Or, for that matter Bush or Clinton.

For trump to be walking around today a free man is hypocrisy in action.

You just can't make this crap up.

https://twitter.com/TerryMcAuliffe/status/1448499318676131842?s=20

Yes you can. They make that BS up all the time.

Holy hell...

January 6 committee seeks to hold Bannon in criminal contempt

By Zak Hudak, Nikole Killion and Ellis Kim

Updated on: October 14, 2021 / 2:53 PM / CBS News

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is seeking to hold former key Trump strategist Stephen Bannon in criminal contempt for not complying with a subpoena, committee chair Bennie Thompson said Thursday.

"The Select Committee will use every tool at its disposal to get the information it seeks, and witnesses who try to stonewall the Select Committee will not succeed," Thompson said in a statement. "All witnesses are required to provide the information they possess so the Committee can get to the facts."

In a letter obtained by CBS News, Bannon's attorney said that he is not acting in "defiance" of the subpoena, and pointed to instructions from former President Trump's attorney. "President Trump's counsel stated that they were invoking executive and other privileges and therefore directed us not to produce documents or give testimony that might reveal information President Trump's counsel seeks to legally protect," his lawyer said.

In an interview with CBS News, Congressman Adam Schiff, who sits on the committee, said the panel will meet next week to vote on moving forward with holding Bannon in criminal contempt. The whole House will then vote on the measure and if a majority supports it, the speaker will send it to the Justice Department for prosecution.

"I do think that one criminal contempt charge will get people's attention that we're serious about enforcing these subpoenas," Schiff said. "And I don't know how many people — I hope very few — are going to be willing to be prosecuted to serve the corrupt interests of the former president."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-banno...IaibyDnK7zYgGyw

I see a problem for Trump here..

1. This flag was carried to the rally on Jan 6th with Donald J. Trump... Thus connecting Trump to the insurrection directly by one his own idiots..

2. It's easy to prove it wasn't peaceful.. Just look at the videos.. It's all right there. She's is a lying sack of poop.

So in summation, she is admitting that this was a rally with Trump involvement and it wasn't peaceful.

Are All trump supporters this gullable?

Glenn Youngkin is running for Governor of Virginia. He's the guy on stage celebrating January 6th.

Bannon should share a cell with Manafort.


Perfect couple both scum suckers.

What do they have in common? Traitor Don.

I was wrong. He was not there; it was thrown to raise money and support for him. He called them celebrating that flag disgusting.

Did you bother to listen to the audio? It was in her own words..

I know nothing of this site,, could very well be left leaning... not sure.. But listen to what the woman says...

I stand by my words.

Given the fact that she is a proven conspiracy theorist, and facing disbarment, why would she ever tell the truth?

File under… “A leopard does not change its spots!”

"No good reason to shoot .... "

Other than breaking and entering into the last stand area of where the members of Congress were gathering. A bunch of absolute crap.

Crock of crap.

There in lies the problem.. Neither She, Rudy or anyone that claims that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection can prove their points..

All you need to do is watch the videos. All the proof anyone needs is right there in living color.

Same with those that claim that the election was stolen from Trump.. No proof... That would be an amazing story.., one for the ages.. I'd listen to them if they had any proof..

They do not.

LOL The Arizona audit turned up more votes for Biden and yet, somehow, they don't change their minds.. they just find another way to twist it.

when are the REAL republicans going to stand up and take control of their party.

Funny thing. Not only have the numerous investigations and audits failed to show evidence of mass fraud and they failed to show any significant fraud, but in the few cases of minor fraud that have been discovered, the vast majority has been perpetrated by republicans.

When fat donny finally chokes on a chicken bone and falls dead on his kitchen floor. Until then they’re all too scared to have their own voice.

It's a crazy world in which we live.. Again I ask, when are the REAL republicans going to stand up and take their party back......

They're all gone. Most actual non-bigoted real conservatives are voting with dems due to the trumpian fascism in their own party. Just ask the guys on this board that voted R their whole lives but had to go dem over DJT.

I've been reading this board every day since before 2006...including the official message board. I've never seen you (OCD), Damon, dawglover05, or Hitt ever, ever make a positive post in defense of the conservative or the republican party. Despite continuous claims of such, it's not a believable statement IMHO!

Then you haven't paying attention.. Your bias is showing.. You only see what you want to see. Sorta like January 6th and the election results...

I was (and in my heart I still am) a republican. I have voted for more Republican presidents than Democrat.

I'd still be a republican is they weren't so caught up in the Trumpian craptokcrasy... Who the hell thinks it's OK to skirt the law and then protect him... who is dumb enough to do that. But it goes back a little further.

I loved John McCain. I felt he would have been a great President. But that damn fool picked a beauty queen Governor from Alaska as a running mate... She was Trump before Trump was Trump.. Just not quite as bad...

I voted twice for W.. And I was damned proud to do it. it wasn't until the end of his term that I felt as if he became a little toy for the Far Right.... (look around, they are every bit as bad as the far left)

Center Right and Center Left politicians are the ones I like..

Just because you don't remember me saying positive things about Republicans,, doesn't mean I haven't.. Like so many things around here, you got it wrong.

I abhor what the Republican party has become, especially during the last administration, which has segued into my dislike of political parties in general, especially a bicameral system. I have spoken on at length about how my ideals line more up with conservativism in its original sense.

I have also defended certain conservative ideals and politicians. If you say "ever make a positive post" then I guess you haven't been reading.

I mostly echo Daman's and DL's posts. Biden was the first D pres candidate I've ever voted for. Previously I voted mostly 3rd party, but was a big fan of McCain. The Republican party's (at least a vocal portion of it) attitude towards McCain when he was still around largely mirrors my attitude towards them.

I have never been a person to vote for a party . Never.

I have always felt the government was set up for compromise.

Find middle ground. No party represents me.

However, trump was never a party candidate. If he thought he could have won as a democrat.

He would have run as one. It was always about him and him alone.

What has become of the republican party post trump is ugly. They represent nothing but power an corruption.

There are plenty of dems that I dislike. But for right now I can not vote republican until the party changes and has viable candidates.

I could never vote for anyone tied to trump. Cruz, Graham, DeSantis, etc. They are corrupt hypocrites.

There is no democrats that I am wild about either. As in the past the choice is the best of two evils.

Well said. Agree 100%

You have pretty much echoed my sentiments. I've had a great deal of respect for many republican candidates. At the top of that list is John McCain. To a lesser extent is Mitt Romney. While Colin Powell was not an elected politicians, I had a great deal of respect for him also. "I liked Ike!" Here in Tennessee I had a great deal of respect for our former Republican governor Bill Haslam.

The problem is that this far right extremist Trumpian idealism has taken over their party. The fringe has now become the main stream. The Democrats too have become far more liberal. At this point sadly it's boiled down to just trying to find a decent human being to vote for. I don't see that ever being anyone tied to the Trumpian way of politics.

Even Colin Powell woke up to what's going on with the Republican party. Even a life long republican like him endorsed Joe Biden.

Well said, bone, and I agree. I think he was just looking for opportunism. That is evidenced by how his ideals - abortion stance being one of them - shifted to the conservative side prior to his campaign. He had previously been on the record as saying "I am very pro choice." Not trying to make the discussion about the issue itself, but just how the shift on a wedge issue coincidentally happened before his run.

I'd be willing to bet, too, that the same people who adamantly support him now would have derided him if there was a D after his name. To be fair, the opposite of that dynamic could be true as well.

Well Powell was one of donny’s favorites. Here’s his eloquent words in response to hearing of Colin’s passing…

“Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction, be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media. Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO, if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!”


Such grace.


What a colossal douche donny constantly proves to be.

And this is the man leading in the polls among Republicans to be their next candidate for president.

Thanks Ya'll!

And they wonder why decent people abhor what they now stand for.

Utterly classless.

Traitor Don is not good enough to lick the shoes of a man like Colin Powell.

A real patriot who could have been a great president.

It figures that a goon like him would make a statement like that.

"Hope that happens to me someday." So trump.

Can not happen fast enough donny loser so people can spit on your grave.

Capitol Police
COME ON IN!



Prosecutors Lost A Fight To Keep A Set Of Jan. 6 Capitol Surveillance Videos Under Seal

A judge rebuffed the government’s argument that releasing more surveillance videos posed a national security risk.
Picture of Zoe Tillman Zoe Tillman BuzzFeed News Reporter
Map of Washington, DC

Reporting From

Washington, DC

Posted on September 21, 2021



Department of Justice

Trump supporters storm into the Capitol in footage released by the government.

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors on Tuesday released a new collection of Capitol surveillance videos from Jan. 6 after a judge ordered them to do so, rejecting the government’s argument that making the clips public could threaten the security of the complex.

The disclosure marks a setback for the US Capitol Police and the US attorney’s office in their efforts to control how much footage from the Capitol’s closed-circuit video (CCV) system gets out. In the latest case, prosecutors argued that revealing the location and vantage points of more cameras could help “bad actors” trying to plan some future assault on the building. A judge concluded that argument was too speculative, however, and that the public had a strong interest in seeing videos that formed the basis for a recent plea deal.
Advertisement

US District Chief Judge Beryl Howell ordered the videos released in response to a request from a media coalition (including BuzzFeed News) that is petitioning judges on a rolling basis for videos that prosecutors have relied on in Jan. 6 cases. Howell’s decision isn’t binding on other judges in the US District Court for the District of Columbia presiding over Capitol riot prosecutions, but it gives the media coalition a favorable ruling to point to in future fights.

Videos...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ease-insurrection?bfsource=relatedmanual

They don't have to prove the negative, that it wasn't.. the burden of proof is to prove that it was...

But by definition, it was an insurrection, which is a violent uprising against the government.. it was that. But was it an attempt to overthrow the government? Nah. The part they are trying to get to is, among the higher ups, who knew the violence was going to happen, when did they know it, and had they participated in the planning of it.

Many people stated for months during the race riots that they were planned and staged... many protests turned into breaking into stores, looting, destroying cars, attacking people, defacing government buildings, attacking police, etc... and that argument was always met with, "No, that was just a small fraction of the people there, the violence was never the intent. Stop lumping everybody in with the violent agitators...."... but the video was right there for all the world to see. So who does a video actually implicate?

Why am I not surprised that you think giving your comrades better information to commit another future insurrection is a good thing?

In this case it also implicates the people that called for this and directed these people go to the Capital building. Would you like to see the videos of what they told people too? I'm guessing you've already seen them. As it pertains to the violence on January 6tyh itself, that blame goes to the people who committed it. Just like with the summer riots. The difference is on January 6th they were trying to interfere with the American election process. And they succeeded if only for a brief time. They went there at the time it was taking place and broke into the chamber to stop it. They threatened to kill our government officials which is also a crime. They were also encouraged to do so by the very people they helped elect.

There is only one evil that matters if Trump is in the running again. I'd vote for a turnip over Trump... That's what I did in 2020. But if Biden gets these infrastructure and social safety net packages passed into law, and voters rights elections protections bill passed, he will be a peach!

It was pointed out to me yesterday that the Extreme Right Wing nutbaggery started before trump.. Look back to the 90's and you'll see Newt Gingrich.. Let's not forget the Freedom Caucus..

There is a history of Republicans falling for dictator types...

McCarthyism:

"It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals, and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents." Sounds a little familiar.

The funny difference between Trump and McCarthy is that McCarthy used the fear of Communist intervention to cause havoc and Trump basically said Communism is Just Dandy with all his cuddling up to Putin.

Both attacked the Arts.. Movies, actors, producers, TV etc.. Both attacked legit news organizations. Both did anything they could to divide us..

You'd think we'd be smart enough to see it and avoid it... Guess not

I would have voted for McCain until he selected knucklehead Palin.

In the end my vote will go to the person who is closest to what I believe which is probably still far.

I care deeply about what we leave behind in regards to the environment we live in.
Clean energy.

Clean air and water.
Protection of the Great Lakes. Stop mining in sensitive eco systems like what was proposed at the Pebble Mine.

Protect "our" National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests.

Protect endanged species.

Basically manage the land we own properly so it will there intact for future generations.

j/c

Jan. 6 panel moves against Bannon, sets contempt vote

WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection moved aggressively against close Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Thursday, swiftly scheduling a vote to recommend criminal contempt charges against the former White House aide after he defied a subpoena.

The chairman of the special committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the panel will vote Tuesday to recommend charges against Bannon, an adviser to Donald Trump for years who was in touch with the president ahead of the most serious assault on Congress in two centuries.

“The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas,” Thompson said in a statement. Bannon, he said, is “hiding behind the former president’s insufficient, blanket and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke. We reject his position entirely.”

If approved by the Democratic-majority committee, the recommendation of criminal charges would go to the full House. Approval there would send them to the Justice Department, which has final say on prosecution.

The showdown with Bannon is just one facet of a broad and escalating congressional inquiry, with 19 subpoenas issued so far and thousands of pages of documents flowing to the committee and its staff. Challenging Bannon’s defiance is a crucial step for the panel, whose members are vowing to restore the force of congressional subpoenas after they were routinely flouted during Trump’s time in office.

The committee had scheduled a Thursday deposition with Bannon, but his lawyer said Trump had directed him not to comply, citing information that was potentially protected by executive privileges afforded to a president. Bannon, who was not a White House staffer on Jan. 6, also failed to provide documents to the panel by a deadline last week.

Still, the committee could end up stymied again after years of Trump administration officials refusing to cooperate with Congress. The longtime Trump adviser similarly defied a subpoena during a GOP-led investigation into Trump’s Russia ties in 2018, but the House did not move to hold him into contempt.

Even though President Joe Biden has been supportive of the committee’s work, it is uncertain whether the Justice Department would choose to prosecute the criminal contempt charges against Bannon or any other witnesses who might defy the panel. Even if it the department does prosecute, the process could take months, if not years. And such contempt cases are notoriously difficult to win.

Members of the committee are pressuring the department to take their side.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who also sits on the Jan. 6 panel, said he expects the Justice Department to prosecute the cases.

“The last four years have given people like Steve Bannon the impression they’re above the law,” Schiff said during an interview for C-SPAN’s Book TV that airs next weekend. “But they’re going to find out otherwise.”

Schiff said efforts to hold Bannon and others in contempt during the Russia investigation were blocked by Republicans and the Trump administration’s Department of Justice.

“But now we have Merrick Garland, we have an independent Justice Department, we have an attorney general who believes in the rule of law -- and so this is why I have confidence that we will get the answers,” Schiff said.

While Bannon has outright defied the Jan. 6 committee, other Trump aides who have been subpoenaed appear to be negotiating. A deposition by a second witness that had been scheduled for Thursday, former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel, was delayed, but Patel is still engaging with the panel, a committee aide said. The aide requested anonymity to discuss the confidential talks.

Two other men who worked for Trump — former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump social media director Dan Scavino — were scheduled for depositions Friday, but they have both been pushed back as well. Meadows, like Patel, has been given a “short postponement” as he is also engaging with the panel, the aide said, and Scavino’s deposition has been rescheduled because there were delays in serving his subpoena.

It is unclear to what extent Trump has tried to influence his aides, beyond his lawyers’ attempts to assert executive privilege. In a statement Thursday, the former president said the members of the committee should “hold themselves in criminal contempt” and added “the people are not going to stand for it!”

Other witnesses are cooperating, including some who organized or staffed the Trump rally on the Ellipse behind the White House that preceded the riot. The committee subpoenaed 11 rally organizers and gave them a Wednesday deadline to turn over documents and records. They have also been asked to appear at scheduled depositions.

Among those complying was Lyndon Brentnall, whose firm was hired to provide Ellipse event security that day, and two longtime Trump campaign and White House staffers, Megan Powers and Hannah Salem. It is uncertain whether any of the others subpoenaed have complied.

Many of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 marched up the National Mall after attending at least part of Trump’s rally, where he repeated his meritless claims of election fraud and implored the crowd to “fight like hell.” Dozens of police officers were injured as the Trump supporters overwhelmed them and broke through windows and doors to interrupt the certification of Biden’s victory.

The rioters repeated Trump’s claims of widespread fraud as they marched through the Capitol, even though the results of the election were confirmed by state officials and upheld by courts. Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, had said the Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have overturned the results.

The panel has also issued a subpoena to a former Justice Department lawyer who positioned himself as Trump’s ally and aided the Republican president’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The demands for documents and testimony from that lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, announced Wednesday, reflect the committee’s efforts to probe not only the insurrection but also the tumult that roiled the Justice Department in the weeks leading up to it as Trump and his allies leaned on government lawyers to advance his election claims.

Clark, an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, has emerged as a pivotal character. A Senate committee report issued last week showed that he championed Trump’s efforts to undo the election results and clashed as a result with department superiors who resisted the pressure, culminating in a dramatic White House meeting at which Trump ruminated about elevating Clark to attorney general.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-subpoenas-steve-bannon-cc5991e85781e1caa14188ffa021ec1c

That whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The part where Trump tells his people not to obey the law or the part where congress is enforcing the law?

This is kinda driving me nuts.. It's simple. He was required to show up and testify.. He's refusing.. Put his ass in jail until he complies!

While I realize it's frustrating there is a process that must be followed. First the house has to pass it with a simple majority and then it advances to the DOJ. The DOJ has the final decision as to whether it's prosecuted.

I can understand why people voted for trump in 2016 because Hilary really was hated by many.

And trump was unknow in politics. He was a real estate celebrity. So, some understandably wanted a fresh face from business.

Now, anyone supporting him and his agenda needs to have their heads examined. trump, who he is and what he has done and what he represents.

trump is a prostitute of corruption and greed. He is the worst kind of human being. He has no regard for a thing other than himself and his desires.

Bannon is pure evil. He gaves trump the yellowbrick road to power. Bannon knows how the prey on others.

He needs to share a cell with Manafort. They are two peas in a pod. Corrupt, greedy, evil.

Definitely the former.

I suspect that Bannon is so ensnared in the strategy that the only thing he could do is plead the 5th.

It was not just about what happened on the 6th, it was about getting the results into the House for a vote, where Trump would have won 26-24.

I'm aware of all that... and that is the reason for frustration... If it were you or I, we'd already be in the can

The real frustration is watching congressional GOPers act like it's a nothing burger. Traitorous spineless boot liking bitches. Or simply fascist scum...

Bannon is the worst kind of gutter scum.

His prediction on Jan 5th on what would happen the next day is chilling.

He reveled in what what occured. He was part of making it happen. trump was in and a part of the scheme.

If there were real justice both would swing for what they are - traitors. Make no mistake that is what they are.

I've never really understood why she was so hated. Was it Bengazi? She sat in front of congress for 11 hours answering every question asked.. Was it white water? All of that was exhaustively investigated and nothing was found. Maybe it was the brothel in the basement of a pizza shop in DC? Another thing that was discredited! Was it the Emails... Again, investigated by republicans and NO actionable findings.

At the time, she was kinda the face of the establishment politician.

Yeah, it was the cumulative effect of everything, really. Moving to New York to become a Senator. All the flat, rehearsed rhetoric. Always being around smoke, but never tied to the fire. The opportunism (I remember her criticizing NAFTA during her 2008 campaign in Ohio, which seems rather odd given who put it into place, but hey, it was convenient to say because it hurt Ohio). The cumulation of everything throughout her career spoke to self-interest and lent very little credence to genuine goals to improve the country as a whole. Contrast that in her own caucus opponent, Bernie Sanders - and I'm not promoting his platforms - who A) got screwed over in the primaries and B) actually had more unique, defined platforms that stood out to show he - at least to some degree - was actually invested in trying to improve the country and not just his own political gain.

The left basically legalized rioting and then complain when it happens in the other direction. They maid the rain and then said crap it is wet when the rain falls. I think rioting in all forms Jan 6 and the BLM protests that turned into riots should be condemned. You cannot pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. Both are wrong and blemishes against our Country.

IMO it was none of the above.

It was likeability. A woman probably the most qualified candidate in history as far as experience.

But she carried the Clinton baggage and all that came with it. She represented a woman in power.

She was hated by other women?? She was depised by republican males.

There was corruption in her background. It was a combination of many things.

I will say this and I believe it to my core. She would have handled covid light years better than trump.

There would not have be over 700k dead Americans.

And all the wrong things (to long to list) done under trump would not have happened.

The presidency would not have turned into pot of chaos and corruption. She would not have been impeached twice.

If she would have lost the 2020 election there would have been a peaceful transition of power.

There would not have been a coup attempt.

It seems you have a common problem among your ilk. You can't seem to comprehend that trying to overturn an election isn't something that happened "in the other direction". It was an attack on democracy itself. In theory that includes all of us. But not anymore it seems.

I riot is a riot! Wrong is wrong. You cannot endorse one and condemn the other.

Was laughed at for telling people on here bloodshed was coming and the 6th would be bad. Wasn't laughed at on Jan 7th.

I'll ask again, who has done that? Nobody that I know of. There were thousands of arrests during the summer riots. As there should have been. There were hundreds of arrests in regards to the Jan. 6th riot as there should have been. Criminal behavior should be punished. The only real difference here is I'm not the one excusing the behavior of one of these groups by the actions of the other.

What I am doing is pointing out that the motives of the two groups was quite different. Something people such as yourself would like to conveniently ignore.

I don't know that anyone has condoned the rioting part of the BLM protests. But let's not kid ourselves that the 2 are comparable. BLM protests occurred, some people got out of hand and committed vandalism while others broke into shops and stole tennis shoes and jewelry. Wrong? Absolutely. Jan 6, a bunch of people went to a political rally and some of them got out of hand, stormed the capitol building and attempted to over throw the government in a failed coup. Wrong? Yes, but not only wrong, egregiously wrong.


You seem to imply that wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation. It is a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it is very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge.

(Thanks to Stuart in Big Bang Theory)

Rioting should absolutely be condemned in both cases. 100%. To insinuate or even hint that rioting was made okay by the left and then use that as an excuse for January 6th or anything else is wrong.

Also, grouping them together is disingenuous, too. There's rioting and there's rioting in the Capitol. That's why things like "assault" and "assault on a police officer" are different crimes.

I certainly didn't laugh at you, but I did think you went too far. I was wrong, and I apologized. I own that one for sure.

You don't need to explain any of this to them, they know damn good and well that the sixth was an atrocious act of violent cowardice perpetrated by their orange idol. The word play, pretending that rioting is as bad as the insurrection, is meant to detract from the severity of the act... anything to protect dear leader. The rubes are just out here carrying Trumps water in public.

The BLM protests WERE NOT RIOTS! Riots happened around some of the BLM protests, yes. But to this day we have no real idea who those rioting were. We do know that there were RIGHT WING bad actors involved. We should have known that from jump since the right-wing nut job are ALWAYS the ones bringing violence into the situation. And all of you GOPers out here wailing about how unfair it is to prosecute those losers that attacked the capitol building, your love of traitors and traitorous acts is well documented and rapidly becoming the default norm on the far right. Sorry, but real Americans don't see it that way. Sane America thinks the 6th was horrible and much worse than any regular riot. This was an assault on democracy itself. This was an attempt to steal an election, something that you right-wingers say you are against... but only if it's not you who are doing it. Everything the GOP has done since Trump lost has all been in effort to steal the last election OR the next. Screw the right. Traitorous to the core.

Sounds a lot like Trump to me.

Not for nothing... Just responding in general about rioting.

Comparing the BLM to Trumps storm Troopers.. Both were wrong.. Dead Wrong. Neither should be tolerated..

One doesn't excuse the other. Doesn't matter who did what first. Whataboutisms don't get the job done.

Saying the riots AROUND the BLM protests were BLM protesters is wrong. Can't even begin to tell you how the right is twisting this crap into some kind of new reality by saying trivial things completely wrong and the rest of us just glossing over it...

I get that,, but I was just trying to point out that riots are wrong..Don't care who's behind them

I suspect that Bannon was “the brain” that came up with the strategy to keep Trump in office.

It fell apart when Pence did not play along.

Tourists... yeah right...

These facists traitors should be hunted to extinction.

They are replusive traitors

And if the brain or the stooges are not held accountable, they are already planning for another repeat.
We are in for an uglier repeat of 2020 if there is no accountability.

And if pence won't play along, they will find somebody who will

Ahead of Jan. 6, Willard hotel in downtown D.C. was a Trump team ‘command center’ for effort to deny Biden the presidency
Jacqueline Alemany, Emma Brown, Tom Hamburger, Jon Swaine 1 day ago
783 Comments


They called it the “command center,” a set of rooms and suites in the posh Willard hotel a block from the White House where some of President Donald Trump’s most loyal lieutenants were working day and night with one goal in mind: overturning the results of the 2020 election.

A team of advisers and lawyers worked at the Willard hotel in Washington seeking to pull off what they claim was a legal strategy to reinstate President Donald Trump for a second term.© Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post A team of advisers and lawyers worked at the Willard hotel in Washington seeking to pull off what they claim was a legal strategy to reinstate President Donald Trump for a second term.
The Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse and the ensuing attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob would draw the world’s attention to the quest to physically block Congress from affirming Joe Biden’s victory. But the activities at the Willard that week add to an emerging picture of a less visible effort, mapped out in memos by a conservative pro-Trump legal scholar and pursued by a team of presidential advisers and lawyers seeking to pull off what they claim was a legal strategy to reinstate Trump for a second term.


They were led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Former chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon was an occasional presence as the effort’s senior political adviser. Former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik was there as an investigator. Also present was John Eastman, the scholar, who outlined scenarios for denying Biden the presidency in an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4 with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

They sought to make the case to Pence and ramp up pressure on him to take actions on Jan. 6 that Eastman suggested were within his powers, three people familiar with the operation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Their activities included finding and publicizing alleged evidence of fraud, urging members of state legislatures to challenge Biden’s victory and calling on the Trump-supporting public to press Republican officials in key states.

The effort underscores the extent to which Trump and a handful of true believers were working until the last possible moment to subvert the will of the voters, seeking to pressure Pence to delay or even block certification of the election, leveraging any possible constitutional loophole to test the boundaries of American democracy.

“I firmly believed then, as I believe now, that the vice president — as president of the Senate — had the constitutional power to send the issue back to the states for 10 days to investigate the widespread fraud and report back well in advance of Inauguration Day, January 20th,” one of those present, senior campaign aide and former White House special assistant Boris Epshteyn, told The Washington Post. “Our efforts were focused on conveying that message.”

Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn around each other: Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis speaks while standing next to President Trump’s attorney and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani during a news conference in Washington, D.C.© Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis speaks while standing next to President Trump’s attorney and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani during a news conference in Washington, D.C.
In seeking to compel testimony from Bannon, the congressional panel investigating Jan. 6 this week cited his reported presence at the “ ‘war room’ organized at the Willard.” The House voted Thursday to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

The committee has also requested documents and communications related to Eastman’s legal advice and analysis.

Eastman told The Post on Wednesday that he has not yet been contacted by the House select committee investigating the insurrection. Asked about his involvement in the Trump team’s operation at the Willard, Eastman said: “To the extent I was there, those were attorney discussions. You don’t get any comment from me on those.”

In May, Eastman indicated that he was at the hotel with Giuliani on the morning of Jan. 6. “We had a war room at the Willard . . . kind of coordinating all of the communications,” he told talk show host Peter Boyles, comments first reported in the newsletter Proof.

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, did not respond to requests for comment.

Also present was One America News reporter Christina Bobb, a lawyer by training who was volunteering for the campaign at the time, according to people familiar with the operation. Bobb declined to comment.

Kerik said his firm billed the Trump campaign more than $55,000 for rooms for the legal team. The former police commissioner, who was helping to head up efforts to collect and investigate allegations of election fraud, was later reimbursed, records show.

The three people familiar with the operation described intense work in the days and hours leading up to and even extending beyond 1 p.m. on Jan 6, when Congress convened for the counting of electoral votes.

In those first days in January, from the command center, Trump allies were calling members of Republican-dominated legislatures in swing states that Eastman had spotlighted in his memos, including Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, encouraging them to convene special sessions to investigate fraud and to reassign electoral college votes from Biden to Trump, two of the people familiar with the operation said.

Attorney John Eastman, left, speaks next to Rudolph W. Giuliani on the Ellipse in Washington on Jan. 6, as Trump supporters gathered to contest the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.© Jim Bourg/Reuters Attorney John Eastman, left, speaks next to Rudolph W. Giuliani on the Ellipse in Washington on Jan. 6, as Trump supporters gathered to contest the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
On Jan. 2, Trump, Giuliani and Eastman spoke to 300 state legislators via a conference call meant to arm them with purported evidence of fraud and galvanize them to take action to “decertify” their election results. “You are the real power,” Trump told the state lawmakers, according to a Washington Examiner report. “You’re the ones that are going to make the decision.”

A participant on the call, Michigan state Sen. Ed McBroom (R), recalled listening as Trump, Giuliani, Eastman and others described the power state legislators have over the certification of electors. “I didn’t need any convincing about our plenary powers,” McBroom told The Post. “I was listening to hear whether they had any evidence to substantiate claims” of significant voter fraud that could change the results in Michigan. The callers did not provide additional information, he said, and he did not support a delay in the electoral vote count.

But others appear to have been persuaded. Three days after the call, dozens of lawmakers from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin wrote to Pence. They asked that he delay certification of Biden’s victory for 10 days to allow “our respective bodies to meet, investigate, and as a body vote on certification or decertification of the election.”

Also on Jan. 2, Eastman, Giuliani and Epshteyn appeared on Bannon’s podcast to make the case directly to Bannon’s pro-Trump listeners. They discussed what Bannon called that day’s “all-hands meeting with state . . . legislators that the Trump campaign and also others are putting on.” The comments were first highlighted by Proof.

They argued that state lawmakers were legally bound to reexamine their election results. “It’s the duty of these legislatures to fix this, this egregious conduct, and make sure that we’re not putting in the White House some guy that didn’t get elected,” Eastman said. He contended that Congress could itself decide on Jan. 6 to select Trump electors in contested states, but that “it would certainly be helped immensely if the legislatures in the states looked at what happened in their own states and weigh in.”

Eastman was not the first or the only person in Trump’s sphere to argue that Pence was empowered to block or delay certification of Biden’s victory. Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn — and Trump himself — suggested as much on Dec. 23, retweeting a post about the possibility of invoking “the Pence card.”

But after other efforts failed, as Jan. 6 neared, the Eastman strategy came into bloom. Eastman, a Federalist Society member, law professor and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had the conservative legal credentials to burnish the argument.

Eastman’s first memo, only two pages long, described a six-point plan by which Pence could effectively commandeer the electoral counting process and enable Trump to win. The memo was first revealed last month in the book “Peril,” by Washington Post writers Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

Eastman has said it was a “preliminary draft” of a more complete and nuanced memo that outlined multiple possible outcomes following the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. The ideas in the memos were the basis for a discussion of options Pence had with Eastman and Trump in the Oval Office on Jan. 4, he has said.


Eastman has more recently distanced himself from the memos, telling the National Review on Friday that the options he outlined did not represent his advice. He said he wrote the memos at the request of “somebody in the legal team” whose name he could not recall.

In the Sacramento Bee, Eastman wrote on Oct. 7 that he advised Pence to delay counting the electoral votes to give the states time to resolve concerns about voting irregularities.

This was the strategy around which the Trump advisers in the Willard command center coalesced, according to two of the people familiar with the discussions there in the early days of January. For that scenario to upend Biden’s win, legislatures in those states would investigate alleged fraud and, if they chose, could decertify their results.

But by Jan. 5, Pence was not sold on the plan, according to “Peril.” That evening, Trump called over to Giuliani and then to Bannon, who were both at the Willard at the time, according to the book, which reported some details of the events at the Willard that day. Trump told Bannon that Pence had been “very arrogant” when the two discussed the matter earlier in the day, the book reported. The following day, Eastman spoke at the rally on the Ellipse.

“All we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at one o’clock he let the legislatures of the states look into this so that we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not!” Eastman told the crowd. “We no longer live in a self-governing republic if we can’t get the answer to this question!”

Pence withstood the pressure. Around 1 p.m., as he prepared to gavel in the joint session, he announced via a letter posted to Twitter that he would count the electoral college votes as they had been cast several weeks earlier.


When the violence erupted a short time later, forcing Congress into recess, some of the most ardent Trump supporters saw an opportunity.

“Congress is adjourned. Send the elector choice back to the legislatures,” Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona GOP, tweeted at 3:30 p.m., more than half an hour after insurrectionists in tactical gear made their way to the floor of the Senate.

Ward did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Epshteyn told The Post, “In line with President Trump’s position and message, the Trump legal team immediately made it clear that any and all violence is not acceptable.” At 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, shortly after the Capitol was breached, Epshteyn tweeted: “To all those protesting, please stay PEACEFUL and respect the LAW.”

After the violence began, Trump used his Twitter account to ask his supporters to “Stay peaceful,” but notably did not tell them to go home until 4:17 p.m., when he tweeted a video of himself addressing the Capitol rioters. “I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us,” he said. “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you, you’re very special.”

While the lawyers at the Willard were focused on promoting the legal strategy Eastman outlined, Kerik helped head up efforts to sift through allegations of election fraud. Phil Waldron, a retired Army colonel who specialized in psychological operations, led a team of people who provided Kerik with analyses of state data, which purported to show fraudulent voting, according to two of the people familiar with activities at the Willard.

Waldron was working closely with Russell Ramsland, a Texas Republican who had been spreading election-fraud conspiracy theories for months before the election and submitted affidavits to multiple post-election lawsuits claiming fraud, The Post has previously reported. Ramsland was present in one of the Willard rooms on the evening of Jan. 6, according to photographs posted to Instagram that circulated widely after the congressional committee’s mention of the “war room.”

Waldron and Ramsland did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Kerik said he had been working alongside Giuliani since Nov. 5, two days after the election, and that they continued until Jan. 19. “I believed until Inauguration Day that something could be done — that’s why the fight was still going on,” Kerik told The Post. “There were a lot of people who thought on the 6th that it was over, but I didn’t believe that because the evidence seemed so overwhelming to me.”

Kerik and Giuliani set up shop in Washington in early November at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, according to Kerik, and in the third week in December moved to the Willard, closer to the White House. The Willard attracted many pro-Trump figures around that time, including “Stop the Steal” provocateur Roger Stone. Stone was not part of the Giuliani team at the Willard and did not participate in the team’s efforts, according to the three people with knowledge of the matter.

On Jan. 8, Kerik billed the Trump campaign for $66,371.54 in travel expenses, including $55,295 on rooms for legal team members at the Willard from Dec. 18 to Jan. 8, according to Kerik and documents reviewed by The Post. The legal team members referenced in the documents include Kerik, Giuliani and Eastman.

Documents also show that Kerik paid for rooms for William Ligon, a Georgia state senator who had chaired two hearings in Atlanta at which Giuliani aired false claims of election fraud, and Preston Haliburton, an Atlanta attorney who had represented a Coffee County Republican leader who claimed to be a whistleblower with evidence about Dominion voting machines.

Ligon and Haliburton did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Kerik initially sought reimbursement from the Republican National Committee, but said he was told the party would not foot the bills. The bills were eventually submitted to the Trump campaign, which agreed to pay them.

Kerik told The Post he was “furious” with the RNC because it collected tens of millions of dollars in support of Trump’s legal battle, “yet didn’t spend a dime on [Giuliani’s] legal team or their expenses.”

Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani are posing for a picture: Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, right, and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik attend an event together last year.© Mark Lennihan/AP Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, right, and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik attend an event together last year.
The RNC has previously said that it did not pay the legal bills because neither Giuliani nor Kerik were hired by or represented the organization.

Eastman stayed at the Willard from Jan. 3 until after breakfast on Jan. 8, according to records showing that the hotel charged $1,407 for his lodging and meals during that time.

His arrival at the Willard came on the same day that Trump convened an Oval Office meeting to discuss replacing then-acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey B. Clark, a Justice Department official friendly with Eastman who proposed that the department encourage investigation of Trump’s election fraud claims in Georgia and other states. The three-hour meeting with Trump ended after Rosen, other department officials and White House counsel Pat Cipollone threatened to resign if Clark were appointed.

Clark has been subpoenaed by the House panel investigating Jan. 6 and is required to appear for questioning at the end of next week. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Although Clark’s proposal was rebuffed, those working in the Willard command center continued to push the idea that Pence could intervene on Jan. 6 itself. Other legal scholars disagreed.

Two experts — former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig and former Justice Department official John Yoo, both known as stalwart conservatives — advised Pence’s staff that there was no basis for the vice president to intervene in the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6.

“I advised that there was no factual basis for Mike Pence to intervene and overturn the results of the election,” said Yoo, who now teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley. “There are certain limited situations where I thought the Vice President does have a role, for example in the event that a state sends two different electoral results. . . . But none of those were present here.”

Luttig, a former federal appellate judge well known to Trump and for whom Eastman had clerked early in his career, told Pence’s staff on Jan. 4 that the analysis Eastman offered in his first memo was “incorrect.” Luttig said subsequently that Eastman’s advice was wrong “at every turn,” including his suggestion that the vice president could delay the electoral vote count.

Police clear out the last of the pro-Trump mob before a 6 p.m. curfew took effect on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.© Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post Police clear out the last of the pro-Trump mob before a 6 p.m. curfew took effect on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.
tom.hamburger@washpost.com

jon.swaine@washpost.com

Dalton Bennett, Alice Crites, Josh Dawsey and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: This story has been amended to include additional details regarding the events of Jan. 5 from the book “Peril,” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-to-deny-biden-the-presidency/ar-AAPRLiM

BOOM! Somebody has some explaining to do... Here it is again, facts and evidence against DJT being laid out just so the right-wing "patriots" will ignore while making up fairytales...

This is as big or bigger than Watergate ever thought about being... Where is the outrage on the right? Crickets. I guess just TAKING whatever you want is how we'll be going forward.

Kinda like Hunter biden making millions to ...............do what again?

Or like fauci denying money spent to ..........well, create the covid 19 virus.

Using YOUR tactics, MILLIONS have been killed by covid, that he oversaw. But, you don't see any outrage by the lefties, do you?

I wonder how much money the "big guy" has raked in?

Quite a bit, no doubt.

Ah, more "what we feel" and "what we believe". The new GOP mantra. Facts no longer matter. Just throw crap against the wall to see what sticks.

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff
Hunter Walker
Sun, October 24, 2021, 8:33 PM·15 min read



As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.

Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

For the sake of clarity, we will refer to one of the sources as a rally organizer and the other as a planner. Rolling Stone has confirmed that both sources were involved in organizing the main event aimed at objecting to the electoral certification, which took place at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6. Trump spoke at that rally and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Some members of the audience at the Ellipse began walking the mile and a half to the Capitol as Trump gave his speech. The barricades were stormed minutes before the former president concluded his remarks.

These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.

And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.”

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

The rally planner describes the pardon as being offered while “encouraging” the staging of protests against the election. While the organizer says they did not get involved in planning the rallies solely due to the pardon, they were upset that it ultimately did not materialize.

“I would have done it either way with or without the pardon,” the organizer says. “I do truly believe in this country, but to use something like that and put that out on the table when someone is so desperate, it’s really not good business.”

Gosar’s office did not respond to requests for comment on this story. Rolling Stone has separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6. We are not describing the nature of that evidence to preserve their anonymity. The House select committee investigating the attack also has interest in Gosar’s office. Gosar’s chief of staff, Thomas Van Flein, was among the people who were named in the committee’s “sweeping” requests to executive-branch agencies seeking documents and communications from within the Trump administration. Both sources claim Van Flein was personally involved in the conversations about the “blanket pardon” and other discussions about pro-Trump efforts to dispute the election. Van Flein did not respond to a request for comment.

These specific members of Congress were involved in the pro-Trump activism around the election and the electoral certification on Jan. 6. Both Brooks and Cawthorn spoke with Trump at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. In his speech at that event, Brooks, who was reportedly wearing body armor, declared, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all billed as speakers at the “Wild Protest,” which also took place on Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

Nick Dyer, who is Greene’s communications director, said she was solely involved in planning to object to the electoral certification on the House floor. Spokespeople for the other members of Congress, who the sources describe as involved in the planning for protests, did not respond to requests for comment.

“Congresswoman Greene and her staff were focused on the Congressional election objection on the House floor and had nothing to do with planning of any protest,” Dyer wrote in an email to Rolling Stone.

Dyer further compared Greene’s efforts to dispute certification of Biden’s victory with similar objections certain Democrats lodged against Trump’s first election.

“She objected just like Democrats who have objected to Republican presidential victories over the years,” wrote Dyer. “Just like in 2017, when Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raul Grijalva, and Maxine Waters tried to prevent President Trump’s election win from being certified.”

Dyer also suggested the public is far more concerned with issues occurring under President Joe Biden than they are with what happened in January.

“No one cares about Jan. 6 when gas prices are skyrocketing, grocery store shelves are empty, unemployment is skyrocketing, businesses are going bankrupt, our border is being invaded, children are forced to wear masks, vaccine mandates are getting workers fired, and 13 members of our military are murdered by the Taliban and Americans are left stranded in Afghanistan,” Dyer wrote.

In another indication members of Congress may have been involved in planning the protests against the election, Ali Alexander, who helped organize the “Wild Protest,” declared in a since-deleted livestream broadcast that Gosar, Brooks, and Biggs helped him formulate the strategy for that event.

“I was the person who came up with the Jan. 6 idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks, and Congressman Andy Biggs,” Alexander said at the time. “We four schemed up on putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting so that — who we couldn’t lobby — we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body hearing our loud roar from outside.”

Alexander led Stop the Steal, which was one of the main groups promoting efforts to dispute Trump’s loss. In December, he organized a Stop the Steal event in Phoenix, where Gosar was one the main speakers. At that demonstration, Alexander referred to Gosar as “my captain” and declared “one of the other heroes has been Congressman Andy Biggs.”

Alexander did not respond to requests for comment. The rally planner, who accused Alexander of ratcheting up the potential for violence that day while taking advantage of funds from donors and others who helped finance the events, confirmed that he was in contact with those three members of Congress.

“He just couldn’t help himself but go on his live and just talk about everything that he did and who he talked to,” the planner says of Alexander. “So, he, like, really told on himself.”

While it was already clear members of Congress played some role in the Jan. 6 events and similar rallies that occurred in the lead-up to that day, the two sources say they can provide new details about the members’ specific roles in these efforts. The sources plan to share that information with congressional investigators right away. While both sources say their communications with the House’s Jan. 6 committee thus far have been informal, they are expecting to testify publicly.

“I have no problem openly testifying,” the planner says.

A representative for the committee declined to comment. In the past month, the committee has issued subpoenas to top Trump allies, government agencies, and activists who were involved in the planning of events and rallies that took place on that day and in the prior weeks. Multiple sources familiar with the committee’s investigation have confirmed to Rolling Stone that, thus far, it seems to be heavily focused on the financing for the Ellipse rally and similar previous events.

Both of the sources made clear that they still believe in Trump’s agenda. They also have questions about how his election loss occurred. The two sources say they do not necessarily believe there were issues with the actual vote count. However, they are concerned that Democrats gained an unfair advantage in the race due to perceived social media censorship of Trump allies and the voting rules that were implemented as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Democrats used tactics to disrupt their political opposition in ways that frankly were completely unacceptable,” the organizer says.

Despite their remaining affinity for Trump and their questions about the vote, both sources say they were motivated to come forward because of their concerns about how the pro-Trump protests against the election ultimately resulted in the violent attack on the Capitol. Of course, with their other legal issues and the House investigation, both of these sources have clear motivation to cooperate with investigators and turn on their former allies. And both of their accounts paint them in a decidedly favorable light compared with their former allies.

“The reason I’m talking to the committee and the reason it’s so important is that — despite Republicans refusing to participate … this commission’s all we got as far as being able to uncover the truth about what happened at the Capitol that day,” the organizer says. “It’s clear that a lot of bad actors set out to cause chaos. … They made us all look like [censored].”

And Trump, they admit, was one of those bad actors. A representative for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

“The breaking point for me [on Jan. 6 was when] Trump starts talking about walking to the Capitol,” the organizer says. “I was like. ‘Let’s get the [censored] out of here.’ ”

“I do kind of feel abandoned by Trump,” says the planner. “I’m actually pretty pissed about it and I’m pissed at him.”

The organizer offers an even more succinct assessment when asked what they would say to Trump.

“What the [censored]?” the organizer says.

The two potential witnesses plan to present to the committee allegations about how these demonstrations were funded and to detail communications between organizers and the White House. According to both sources, members of Trump’s administration and former members of his campaign team were involved in the planning. Both describe Katrina Pierson, who worked for Trump’s campaign in 2016 and 2020, as a key liaison between the organizers of protests against the election and the White House.

“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer says. “She was like our primary advocate.”

Pierson spoke at the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Both sources also describe Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests on Jan. 6. Among other things, they both say concerns were raised to Meadows about Alexander’s protest at the Capitol and the potential that it could spark violence. Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee last month as part of a group of four people “with close ties to the former President who were working in or had communications with the White House on or in the days leading up to the January 6th insurrection.”

“Meadows was 100 percent made aware of what was going on,” says the organizer. “He’s also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers.”

A separate third source, who has also communicated with the committee and was involved in the Ellipse rally, says Kylie Kremer, one of the key organizers at that event, boasted that she was going to meet with Meadows at the White House ahead of the rally. The committee has been provided with that information. Kremer did not respond to a request for comment.

Both the organizer and the planner say Alexander initially agreed he would not hold his “Wild Protest” at the Capitol and that the Ellipse would be the only major demonstration. When Alexander seemed to be ignoring that arrangement, both claim worries were brought to Meadows.

“Despite making a deal … they plowed forward with their own thing at the Capitol on Jan.y 6 anyway,” the organizer says of Alexander and his allies. “We ended up escalating that to everybody we could, including Meadows.”

A representative for Meadows did not respond to requests for comment.

Along with making plans for Jan. 6, the sources say, the members of Congress who were involved solicited supposed proof of election fraud from them. Challenging electoral certification requires the support of a member of the Senate. While more than a hundred Republican members of the House ultimately objected to the Electoral College count that formalized Trump’s loss, only a handful of senators backed the effort. According to the sources, the members of Congress and their staff advised them to hold rallies in specific states. The organizer says locations were chosen to put “pressure” on key senators that “we considered to be persuadable.”

“We had also been coordinating with some of our congressional contacts on, like, what would be presented after the individual objections, and our expectation was that that was the day the storm was going to arrive,” the organizer says, adding, “It was supposed to be the best evidence that they had been secretly gathering. … Everyone was going to stay at the Ellipse throughout the congressional thing.”

Heading into Jan. 6, both sources say, the plan they had discussed with other organizers, Trump allies, and members of Congress was a rally that would solely take place at the Ellipse, where speakers — including the former president — would present “evidence” about issues with the election. This demonstration would take place in conjunction with objections that were being made by Trump allies during the certification on the House floor that day.

“It was in a variety of calls, some with Gosar and Gosar’s team, some with Marjorie Taylor Greene and her team … Mo Brooks,” the organizer says.

“The Capitol was never in play,” insists the planner.

A senior staffer for a Republican member of Congress, who was also granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation, similarly says they believed the events would only involve supporting objections on the House floor. The staffer says their member was engaged in planning that was “specifically and fully above board.”

“A whole host of people let this go a totally different way,” the senior Republican staffer says. “They [censored] it up for a lot of people who were planning to present evidence on the House floor. We were pissed off at everything that happened .”

The two sources claim there were early concerns about Alexander’s event. They had seen him with members of the paramilitary groups 1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) and the Oath Keepers in his entourage at prior pro-Trump rallies. Alexander was filmed with a reputed member of 1AP at his side at a November Stop the Steal event that took place in Georgia. The two sources also claim to have been concerned about drawing people to the area directly adjacent to the Capitol on Jan. 6, given the anger among Trump supporters about the electoral certification that was underway that day.

“They knew that they weren’t there to sing “Kumbaya” and, like, put up a peace sign,” the planner says. “These frickin’ people were angry.”





https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-jan-6-protest-organizers-003326225.html

Bring back the gallows.

is hunter important?

While trump and his gang tried to overthrow the election?

hunter and his life is meaningless

The audacity of everyone mentioned in that article is outrageous.

j/c:

Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol

https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/m...ery-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

Went to the home page... 2 exclusives written in serious conspiracy theory style, followed by external links with descriptors like "Full Retard", and then lots of Tucker, Matt Gaetz, Steve Bannon and other MAGA propagandists. Posting links like this for dems to read is just silly. Libs are way too smart to believe that crap. But you should get rave reviews from 40, arch , and fish...

So your solution to nutjob conspiracies turning violent is... more nutjob conspiracy stuff.

No

Cause you don't care about him being a drug addict, yet getting millions in consulting fees.

Same can be said about Don JR and Eric.

I've not heard about them being drug addicts. If you have, links?

Still the 'what about"?

I mean, have you heard them talk?

So was the Mypillow guy yet Trump and his supporters didn't seem to have a problem with him. What is illegal about consulting fees?

You're talking about Hunter Biden in a January 6th commission thread and then point the finger at others for whatabouts?

Hey, If Hunter is shown to have broken a law, then there has to be a price exacted.. No question. Nobody is above the law....

Having said that, most of the crap Trumpians are pushing is in an effort to distract from 1/6/21.

They all know what happened, but they chose to lie about it.

Hunter Biden is not the first offspring of a politician or business executive to try and cash in on their family name and he will not be the last. It is the nature of our system.

The same applies to Don JR and Eric, and Ivanka, and Jared. Forget the silver spoon and bring out the golden spoon.

Yes, whataboutism applies. So does hypocrisy.

They live by different rules.

I was not a Hillary fan either. So at least there is something that is consistent with my thoughts.

Giving him a job in The White House would be news. Nepotism and having your family help you control government is a terrible thing. But as you notice, they never said a word about that. Evidence doesn't matter. Only innuendo and accusations matter now.

Lyndsey Graham: "Youve got guns for a reason, use them!"... smh.

Those depositions prove they lied and they knew they were lying about the election being stolen. Sidney Powell's deposition shows the same thing.

How come these folks are refusing to answer questions... What are they afraid of?

As if we don't know...

Haven't you heard?

TYT. Idiots, and stupid hate mongers.

Hey, the person you replied to started a thread claiming 8 people were shot at a concert, when not even CNN reports a single shot being fired.

I copied and posted that link 13 minutes after it went up. The copy on the tweet read exactly like the thread title because I copy pasted it. After, they updated their tweet... big deal, I'm horrible. smh.

That's the problem with 'tweets'. They don't have to be factual for some to post it as fact.

Just like the lies about stealing the election and Covid conspiracies. Only many of those were lies told on purpose that until this day have not been corrected.

LOL I wanted someone that supports Trump to answer it... But yeah, we know

Not sure I actually understand your response to my question.. As for the rest about shootings, I don't know....

I think all politicians should be immediately removed from office if they refuse to answer questions or "Plead the 5th". If they lie uder oath, should be put in prison for life without parole.

Washington would be a ghost town if you had your way.

Do you really understand the net effect this will have on the Republican party and those involved with the insurrection?

That might be an improvement.

Might? lol

And that's bad???