DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jan 6th Commision

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.