Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications director, said that she was told by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that Donald Trump would not be leaving office in the wake of his 2020 election defeat.
Man, the committee has SO MUCH on Trump, it should be a lay-up for Garland.
Yes and it has to be an absolute slam dunk to go after an American president.
And trump still gets his day in court, and his side gets to cross examine also and he would have privilege about some things.
I read somewhere about 1-2 months ago that Garland was up in the air about indicting trump. This would be a first in U.S. history, what would it do for the office. One of the talking heads was on later that night and wondered about civil unrest if trump was brought out of Mar-a-Lago in cuffs.
But, that being said, it is almost imperative with as much that has come out that the DOJ at least does serious due diligence on trump and his inner circle. It is very bad for the democracy if they don't.
Exclusive: Trump’s Lawyers Think Mark Meadows Is Going Down Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley Wed, July 13, 2022, 10:29 AM·7 min read
As she opened the House Jan. 6 committee hearing Tuesday, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney ticked through a list of names of people Donald Trump’s legal team have attempted to pin the blame for the Capitol attack, naming the president’s lawyers, MAGA-friend lawmakers, and others.
Mark Meadows, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, didn’t make the list — yet.
Trump’s inner circle increasingly views Meadows as a likely fall guy for the former president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Members of Trump’s legal team are actively planning certain strategies around Meadows’ downfall — including possible criminal charges. Trump has himself begun the process of distancing himself from some of his onetime senior aide’s alleged actions around Jan. 6.
Meadows’ already bleak legal prospects could get even worse. Rolling Stone has learned that the Jan. 6 committee has been quietly probing his financial dealings, and any new revelations would add to an already long list of unethical and potential illegal actions he’s accused of taking on behalf of Donald Trump. . “Everyone is strategizing around the likelihood that Mark is in a lot of trouble,” says a lawyer close to the former president. “Everyone who knows what they’re doing, anyway.”
This reporting is based on Rolling Stone’s conversations with eight sources familiar with the matter, each of whom is still working in Trump’s political orbit, on his legal defense, or in Republican circles in regular contact with the ex-president. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss sensitive matters. A spokesperson for Meadows declined to comment.
For Meadows, it doesn’t help his case that he’s loathed by any number of his fellow Trumpworld veterans, some of whom view him as a two-faced man prone to double-dealing and simply telling people what they want to hear. Some of Meadows’ ex-colleagues and staff in the Trump administration continue to hold grudges against him, partly because they see him as responsible for putting their lives and health in danger when he oversaw a period of rapid coronavirus spread in Trump’s White House towards the end of the presidency. And the former president himself is not long on loyalty, particularly when facing legal peril of his own. Trump’s team has already explored possible legal gameplans about what would happen if Meadows faced additional criminal charges stemming from the events surrounding Jan. 6, according to three people familiar with the situation. And those discussions have at times focused on how to insulate Trump, should any significant charges against foot soldiers like Meadows actually materialize.
Indeed, in recent weeks, Trump himself has casually dropped into conversations with some of his longtime associates that he didn’t always know what Meadows was doing during the months leading up to the riot or after his time in office, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone. (When Trump finds himself backed into a corner or a moment of legal jeopardy, he will often claim — however flimsily — that he barely knew a top aide who was doing his bidding, or that he didn’t know what his own personal lawyers were doing for him.)
Furthermore, investigators on Capitol Hill have shown a willingness to investigate Meadows’ private dealings, beyond the scope of how he directly aided Trump during his anti-democratic and violent crusade to cling to power. According to two sources familiar with the matter, the Jan. 6 committee has asked some witnesses specific questions about Meadows’ financial arrangements with other Trump advisers who sought to overturn President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The line of questioning made it clear to witnesses that the committee members were searching for signs of legally dubious payments. (The congressional Jan. 6 investigation is of course separate from the Biden Justice Department’s probe, though the House select committee does have the power to make criminal referrals to the feds.)
“Mark is gonna get pulverized…and it’s really sad,” predicts one of Trump’s current legal advisers. “Based on talking to [Meadows in the past, it felt like] he doesn’t actually believe any of this [election-theft] stuff, or at least not most of it. He was obviously just trying to perform for Trump, and now he’s maybe screwed himself completely.”
As the Jan. 6 hearings on Capitol Hill have unfolded — and particularly after former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the committee late last month — questions of Meadows’ own potential liability over his conduct before and after the riot have intensified, including among Trump’s former and current legal brass. “I do think criminal prosecutions are possible,” says Ty Cobb, a former top lawyer in the Trump White House. “Possible for Trump and Meadows certainly. And for the others, including lawyers, who engaged fraudulently in formal proceedings or investigations.”
In her appearance before the January 6 Committee, Hutchinson revealed that White House staff repeatedly warned her former boss that the rally goers on the mall who Trump encouraged to march on the Capitol were armed. Once informed of the threat, Meadows allegedly shrugged it off. Meadows himself, however, seemed to anticipate that the January 6 rally could turn ugly, according to Hutchinson’s testimony. “Things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6,” she quoted him warning in the days before the insurrection.
Meadows was back in the committee’s unflattering spotlight on Tuesday, as investigators highlighted how he assured members of Trump’s government that the then-president would concede, while privately encouraging him to keep fighting and aiding him in that scandalous fight.
Legal experts say Meadows’ foreknowledge of the armed mob on the mall, his own expectation that the rally could be “really, really bad,” combined with his inaction could mean potential criminal exposure for the former Trump aide. Rep. Liz Cheney said in early July that messages sent to Hutchinson telling her that she’s “loyal” and urging her to “do the right thing” in her deposition with the committee could prompt a criminal referral from the committee for potential witness tampering. Reporting by CNN and Politico identified the author of those messages as an intermediary for Meadows but the former White House chief of staff’s spokesman denied that he or anyone in his “camp” attempted to sway her testimony.
But Trumpland’s concerted efforts to distance the former president and other protected persons from Meadows comes amid a broader search for someone to take the fall. Cheney’s list of patsies on Tuesday included Trumpist lawyer and “coup memo” author John Eastman — whom, as Rolling Stone reporting in June, Trump’s team has been eyeing — and Sydney Powell, another Trump lawyer. Cheney also named Rep. Scott Perry, who allegedly was part of the push to get the Justice Department to overturn the election.
Though it remains to be seen who will ultimately be saddled with the bulk of the blame and legal baggage, it is clear this collective — long known for petty backbiting and infighting before, during, and after the Trump administration — has no intention of all going down together.
Ultimately, however, the committee hearings have made clear that Trump was repeatedly made aware that he was the legitimate loser of the 2020 election, and the efforts to overturn that election happened at his behest.
“The strategy is to blame people his advisers called ‘the crazies’ for what the president did,” Cheney said at the hearing Tuesday. “This, of course, is nonsense. President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.”
One piece of advice for the DOJ, if you intend to take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Listening to the J6 hearing, it appears to be a slam dunk,, but I don't know what the DOJ is thinking or what they know so I've just gotta wait and see like everyone else
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
One piece of advice for the DOJ, if you intend to take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Listening to the J6 hearing, it appears to be a slam dunk,, but I don't know what the DOJ is thinking or what they know so I've just gotta wait and see like everyone else
To be fair, what we're seeing/hearing now SHOULD be a slam dunk. It's just one side painting a picture. It's a TOTALLY different ballgame once you get the opposing side in there trying to poke holes.
I've held the belief for a long time that the biggest boogyman to folks who work in DC is the idea of accountability. I have a hard time believing that any of them, from either side, would be the first to try to enforce this quality on anyone. So I think the idea that Trump being charged (much less convicted) with anything is a pipedream. If our elected officials are good at anything, it's gotta be not getting the important stuff done. So from that perspective, I think this committee is really important to get as much out in the open as possible. Shine the white hot light of truth on the folks involved and hope that'll do some good... because the people responsible probably won't.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
lol Ready aim fire..Cheney, Garland and others know he ain’t no king. And his motley crew of proud boys are just KKK thugs wanting some sort of NAZI power war lord status, they’ll never get. Bring ‘em on. Charge his ass ASAP.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
That's nowhere near the tone (or the words) of my post.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
All you add is trolling, without substance, and then completely take someone else's post out of context. Everything he said was on point.
You also get exuberant about certain things, like the potential for charging Trump, and the other thread where you chided me for saying the $15 federal minimum wage wouldn't happen, only to get your butt repeatedly handed to you.
Your posts read like 40's evil twin.
Put some thought in. I know you're capable of it. I've seen it from time to time.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
One piece of advice for the DOJ, if you intend to take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Listening to the J6 hearing, it appears to be a slam dunk,, but I don't know what the DOJ is thinking or what they know so I've just gotta wait and see like everyone else
The issue isn't in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. The issue is, i believe, that it will need to go in front of a jury. How do you find 12 people who haven't already made up their minds one way or the other. And we have seen that those who support trump will just put their fingers in their ears.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
Here's the issue I have. Sure, we can say that no politician wants or likes accountability. I won't dispute that. But has anything in this country come close to trying to overturn an election to keep a president in power this way? I mean at some level, at some point we have to draw a line somewhere or Nixon was right....
And we've all witnessed how Republicans "poke holes" in things. All of the stolen election lies are a prime example of that and what's gotten us to where we are now. No amount of spin is going to change the things Trump and those around him have done and said in all of this. Also almost ALL of the witnesses are Republicans and many even close to Trump. The only excuse they have is their standard go to line any time anyone proves their complicity. The words witch hunt.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I totally agree. It absolutely should happen, but my assumption is it probably won't. Senators that were clamoring to get Trump to stop the people storming the Capitol were already flipping back into politics mode as the dust settled. Just my take on the reality of hte situation.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
As far as the odds of trump ever being prosecuted we agree. All one needs to do is look at what some of those GOP senators said the day of and the day after the insurrection and then look at what they were saying a short time later, and are still saying, to see just how accurate you are. What saddens me the most is the millions of voters that either can't see it or refuse to look at it.
And that's the thing I believe so many miss in all of this. Nobody is asking Republicans to agree with the Democrats. People will always disagree on political policies. But for God's sake man, at least nominate a decent human being who isn't a scum bag. Nobodies asking for perfect. As humans we all have our flaws. But it's so easy to do much better than this nasty, attacking, belligerent excuse for a human being.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The problem is the attraction of the power either A) attracts the worst of the worst (hence the subject person) or B) turns well-meaning people into eventual villains. I think over the last decade or so, the aforementioned B group has been overrun by the A group. Part of the lack of accountability that oober mentioned I think builds on the attractiveness of those people seeking those positions.
A hammer has to come down.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
It's my belief/hope that, even if nothing concrete even comes out of this investigation, the stuff from these sessions can be used to inform future elections. If it's Trump, voters will have to deal (each in their own way) with the testimony shared (and yes, remaining willfully ignorant is A response). Even for down-ballot elections, candidates trying to tap into Trumpism for votes will have to weigh the risks.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
i'm tired of hearing from people in power about the risk of some of these loyalist creating unrest.
if the POTUS committed a crime, nothing will help restore some trust in the government than actually holding elected officials accountable.
last time i checked, no one is above the law, even the POTUS.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The problem is the attraction of the power either A) attracts the worst of the worst (hence the subject person) or B) turns well-meaning people into eventual villains. I think over the last decade or so, the aforementioned B group has been overrun by the A group. Part of the lack of accountability that oober mentioned I think builds on the attractiveness of those people seeking those positions.
A hammer has to come down.
I agree to some extent and disagree to another extent. Let's look at just a few of people running for the nomination in 2016 Republican voters had to choose from.....
John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.
Out of every nominee running, it was GOP voters who made the decision to run the nastiest, most vile person in the field. Now I'm not trying to say any of those people are squeaky clean, but let's be honest, it was Republican voters who decided to nominate the nastiest person in the bunch. So I do agree that some of the worst are attracted to the job. I also saw the voters choose the worst who was attracted to the job.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I get what you're saying here, but I think you might be over-simplifying. I'd argue it's a correlation vs causation situation, in terms of GOP voters electing the nastiest person possible.
By that line of thinking, it was Dem voters who ran (probably) the only person that could lose to said nastiest person in what usually ends up being a popularity contest.
Last edited by oobernoober; 07/14/2202:12 PM. Reason: me grammarz is good
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
I think that's part of the whole shift from B to A (who I would classify all those other candidates as). Group B for the longest time used smear campaigns and tactics that increasingly appealed to the lowest common fear/anger denominator in everyone, and Group A took advantage and started shoving out Group B because they really had no morals or boundaries and there hasn't been any accountability.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
'I'm the winner. Game over. Suck on that!' Leaked audio from October 2020 captures Steve Bannon touting Trump's plan to declare victory on election night even if he LOST Donald Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon was secretly recorded while hosting a meeting with associates of exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui Bannon accurately predicted that primarily Democratic mail-in ballots being counted after in-person votes would give Trump an early lead in the race Trump wound up declaring an early victory and making accusations of fraud in a speech from the White House in the early hours of November 4, 2020 Bannon had predicted in the audio tape: 'When you wake up on Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm' But Bannon said Trump would do 'some crazy s***' if Biden ended up being ahead of him on election night By ELIZABETH ELKIND, POLITICS REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 11:32 EDT, 13 July 2022 | UPDATED: 13:33 EDT, 13 July 2022
e-mail 112 shares 1.8k
View comments Former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon was caught on tape in October 2020 stating that the ex-president would declare victory on election night - even if he did not necessarily win, according to leaked audio published on Tuesday.
Bannon can be heard accurately predicting the events of election night 2020 to a group of Chinese associates, according to the report by Mother Jones.
He also said Trump would 'do some crazy s***' if President Joe Biden had an early lead in the polls.
READ MORE
The election's historic number of mail-in ballots, which overwhelmingly came from Democrats adhering to COVID-19 pandemic guidelines, would not be counted until those cast-in person were. The latter, Bannon predicted, would be majority Republican.
Trump would seize on what appeared to be an early lead on the evening of November 3, he said.
'What Trump's gonna do is just declare victory, right. He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just gonna say he’s a winner,' Bannon laughed on the tape.
'The Democrats - more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. So they're going to have a natural disadvantage, and Trump's going to take advantage of that - that's our strategy.'
That's exactly what the former president did.
In the early hours of November 4, Trump delivered an unprecedented address before the nation declaring, 'frankly, we did win this election' and that a 'major fraud' was taking place because votes continued to be counted.
Bannon accurately predicted the following morning's media fallout in the damning audio tape.
'When you wake up on Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm,' he said.
'You're going to have antifa crazy, the media crazy, the courts are crazy - and Trump's going to sit there mocking them.'
Bannon then appeared to mock his former boss himself, mimicking what tweets he believed the ex-president would send out that day.
'You lose, I'm the winner, I'm the king,' Bannon said as the room broke out in laughter.
'He'll be going, "Where's Hunter? Is Hunter on a crackpipe?" He'll be - because then it doesn't matter, remember. Here's the thing - after that Trump never has to go to a voter again.'
He was referring to the fact that Trump would be term-limited after a second four-year-stint.
Bannon's predictions for what Trump would do on election night played out accurately as in the early hours of November 4, the then-president declared to the world as votes were still being counted: 'Frankly, we did win this election' +4 View gallery Bannon's predictions for what Trump would do on election night played out accurately as in the early hours of November 4, the then-president declared to the world as votes were still being counted: 'Frankly, we did win this election'
The 'War Room' podcast host claimed Trump would then fire his own appointed FBI director, Chris Wray.
'At 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, "I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that,"' Bannon said.
And if Biden was somehow up in the polls late on Tuesday evening, Bannon told his associates that Trump would simply claim election fraud - which he also did in his infamous speech.
'It's going to be even crazier,' Bannon said, with the crowd laughing again. 'Because he's going to sit there and say they stole it.'
A woman chimed in: 'Yeah. Agree.'
Bannon guessed Trump would say: 'I'm directing the Attorney General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 states.'
'If Trump - if Biden is winning, Trump is gonna do some crazy s***.'
Trump's plan to declare an early victory was reported in Axios on November 1, 2020, though the then-president denied it at the time.
Bannon was speaking to a group of associates of exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui. Bannon had been arrested on his yacht over fraud charges in 2020 +4 View gallery Bannon was speaking to a group of associates of exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui. Bannon had been arrested on his yacht over fraud charges in 2020
Bannon's October 2020 conversation took place in a Washington, DC townhouse where he tapes his podcast and was attended by people linked to exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui.
Bannon had been arrested on the billionaire's yacht for fraud charges in 2020.
A spokesperson for the right-wing activist accused Mother Jones of 'rehashing old news' with the leaked audio.
'Nothing on the recording wasn’t already said on War Room or on multiple other shows like The Circus on Showtime. Bannon gave that lecture multiple times from August to November,' the spokesperson told DailyMail.com.
'This is rehashing old news because the January 6 committee is losing steam each and every day. They should have the courage to have Mr. Bannon come and testify publicly about these events.'
An attorney for Bannon was in court this week where a judge struck down his bid to delay an upcoming criminal trial set to begin on Monday.
Late last year, Bannon was indicted for failing to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.
He's since reached out to the panel over the weekend asking to cooperate for a public hearing via a letter from his lawyer, though Justice Department prosecutors blasted the effort as an attempt to dodge accountability at the last minute.
In its latest hearing on Tuesday, the January 6 committee revealed it had knowledge that Bannon spoke to Trump at least twice on the eve of the Capitol riot.
He was also among a core group of Trump's outside advisers stationed in a 'command center' out of the Willard Hotel from January 5 until January 6.
Mark Meadows' aide, now a CNN pundit, says he asked her to stay because Trump wasn't leaving office Trump's former chief of staff allegedly told his aide not to quit — because Trump wasn't quitting By BOB BRIGHAM PUBLISHED JULY 13, 2022 12:01PM (EDT)
Chief of staff Mark Meadows revealed on Dec. 2, 2020 that Donald Trump did not intend to leave office despite losing the presidential election to Joe Biden, a former top White House official revealed on CNN.
Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin recounted on CNN a conversation she had with Mark Meadows on that day while wondering who allowed Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne into the White House for the "unhinged" Dec. 18 meeting.
"Who waived them?" Griffin asked. "Which is putting them through security to get onto White House grounds. We don't even have that answer now."
"I suspect it was Mark Meadows and I say that because I can tell you before I resigned, I said 'Sir, I'm planning to move on, I want to put in my notice.' And he said to me, 'What if I could tell you we're actually going to be staying?' You can interpret that as hypothetical, but there were people around the president telling him that and that's what led to this absolute insanity," Griffin said.
Advertisement: She noted she "moved up my resignation to the next morning and I said, 'No, of course, we're not.' I told all my staff we lost"
She resigned on Dec. 3, making Dec. 2 the date of the reported conversation.
THE SECRET SERVICE erased text messages from January 5 and January 6, 2021, according to a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept. The letter was originally sent by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to the House and Senate homeland security committees. Though the Secret Service maintains that the text messages were lost as a result of a “device-replacement program,” the letter says the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications.
One piece of advice for the DOJ, if you intend to take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Listening to the J6 hearing, it appears to be a slam dunk,, but I don't know what the DOJ is thinking or what they know so I've just gotta wait and see like everyone else
To be fair, what we're seeing/hearing now SHOULD be a slam dunk. It's just one side painting a picture. It's a TOTALLY different ballgame once you get the opposing side in there trying to poke holes.
I've held the belief for a long time that the biggest boogyman to folks who work in DC is the idea of accountability. I have a hard time believing that any of them, from either side, would be the first to try to enforce this quality on anyone. So I think the idea that Trump being charged (much less convicted) with anything is a pipedream. If our elected officials are good at anything, it's gotta be not getting the important stuff done. So from that perspective, I think this committee is really important to get as much out in the open as possible. Shine the white hot light of truth on the folks involved and hope that'll do some good... because the people responsible probably won't.
One sided? Hardly.
Virtually every witness is republican and a Trump supporter. It's also fair to say that McCarthy was offered the chance to put people on the panel and he declined. I'm rather thankful for that because the whole thing has been very well planned out. No crazy outbursts from the likes of a Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz or Boebert or Green and all the crazy they bring.
I agree, it might be a pipe dream that Trump gets indicted and convicted. That stop me from thinking and believing he should be dressed in an orange jumpsuit.
I did think that I heard that the DOJ has requested all the J6 Comm has on Fake Electors yesterday.. Drip Drip...
Best bet for an indictment is in Fulton County Ga. We shall see.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Coming from someone that "knew" all the things that they're saying right now, it's obvious why McCarthy isn't touching these committee hearings. That doesn't take away from my original point... pursuing actual charges against anyone (especially former president) is a whole different ballgame for many reasons, not the least of which being the defendant(s) would have people in the room during arguments and would be presenting their own evidence/defense.
Look... I'm with you on this one. I'd be tickled pink if our elected folks in DC actually took our democracy seriously for once. I'm just not going to hold my breath.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
We need the agents to pony up and testify. All we have as of now if a response that they "would" counter the allegations, but no follow-through. It's time to pony up, given the fact nobody else has refuted her testimony after two more bites at the apple now (this officer and Cipollone).
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
What'll be interesting to see is if/when the Republicans retake the house, whether they will disband the committee. I could see it as an easy decision when it seemed the committee was stagnant, but over the past month, it has become increasingly gripping to all the viewers and constituents that have an open mind. My guess is that they will still get rid of it or cripple it, but it won't be as easy as it was before.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
What'll be interesting to see is if/when the Republicans retake the house, whether they will disband the committee. I could see it as an easy decision when it seemed the committee was stagnant, but over the past month, it has become increasingly gripping to all the viewers and constituents that have an open mind. My guess is that they will still get rid of it or cripple it, but it won't be as easy as it was before.
s They already said that they are going to shut down the committee if they take over. A couple little problems. First, the 1/6 committee is a legislative probe only. Second, the 1/6 committee has said that they should be down with the public hearings and issue a report on their findings by a September 2022 timeframe-Ending before the mid terms. And a bigger issue, republicans wanting to shut down the 1/6 will have no affect on the DOJ or the New York probe and probably would not affect the Georgia probe either.
But low and behold, house republicans say that if they do take over in November, they are launching their own probe-and some of the issues that are looking at- election fraud-63 court losses are not enough Pelosi's handling of capitol security on 1/6 treatment of the 1/6 rioters who have been jailed.
And I will put it out here now-trump will wait until he gets word he is getting indicted-and will announce he is running for '24. I think he totally has it in his mind that they will not pursue him if he is running and if they do, he will cry the victim
Coming from someone that "knew" all the things that they're saying right now, it's obvious why McCarthy isn't touching these committee hearings. That doesn't take away from my original point... pursuing actual charges against anyone (especially former president) is a whole different ballgame for many reasons, not the least of which being the defendant(s) would have people in the room during arguments and would be presenting their own evidence/defense.
Look... I'm with you on this one. I'd be tickled pink if our elected folks in DC actually took our democracy seriously for once. I'm just not going to hold my breath.
So true. and yes, we are of like minds here.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
The hearings have made it crystal clear what happened and who were involved.
Many should serve time. On guy who I would love see pay (to the extreme) is Bannon.
That man is a pure traitor. No two ways about it.
He's way worse a human than I thought possible. Guys like Bannon, Jones(infowars), Rudy and Powell (the Kraken attorney) and you can't forget the My Pillow guy Mike Lindall (spelling).
Last edited by Damanshot; 07/16/2210:04 AM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Fulton County DA sends target letters to top Georgia republicans-The had a fake set of electors and signed off on them.
Prosecutor warns Georgia officials they may face charges in Trump inquiry July 15, 2022 at 8:09 pm State Senator Burt Jones, a candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia, at a Save America rally in Commerce, Georgia, March 26. Jones was among three Republicans who were sent letters by an Atlanta prosecutor on Friday, July 15, warning that they could be indicted in the investigation into Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. (Audra Melton / The New York Times) State Senator Burt Jones, a candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia, speaks at a Save America rally in Commerce, Georgia, March 26. Jones was among three Republicans who were sent letters by an Atlanta prosecutor on Friday, July 15, warning that they could be indicted in the investigation into Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. (Audra Melton / The New York Times)
1 of 2 | State Senator Burt Jones, a candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia, at a Save America rally in Commerce, Georgia, March 26. Jones was among... (Audra Melton / The New York Times)More Skip Ad
By DANNY HAKIM and Richard Fausset The New York Times ATLANTA — The breadth, speed and seriousness of the criminal investigation into election meddling by former President Donald Trump and his associates in Georgia were underscored Friday by the revelation that two pro-Trump state senators and the chair of the state Republican Party were sent letters by an Atlanta prosecutor informing them they could be indicted, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.
The Fulton County prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, is also weighing whether to subpoena Trump himself and seek his testimony before a grand jury, just days after she subpoenaed seven of his advisers, including Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in an investigation into efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia. The special grand jury is looking into a range of potentially criminal acts, including the selection of a slate of pro-Trump electors in the weeks after the election and Trump’s now-famous call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, asking him to “find” nearly 12,000 votes that would reverse his loss there.
The letters to David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chair, and state Sens. Burt Jones and Brandon Beach were first reported by Yahoo News. Neither the men nor their lawyers could be reached for comment Friday.
The potential exposure of the Republican officials could have serious ramifications in Georgia’s November elections, in which Jones is the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. On Friday, his Democratic opponent, Charlie Bailey, released a statement accusing Jones of being “anti-American and unpatriotic” for taking part in a “failed attempted overthrow of the American government.”
Shafer’s fealty to Trump and his baseless claims of a stolen election have put him at odds with Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, as well as Raffensperger, creating an unusual schism within the state Republican Party. Both Kemp and Raffensperger easily defeated Trump-backed primary challengers this year.
The so-called target letters are the latest indication that the Georgia investigation could be one of the most perilous legal problems for Trump and some of his allies. The televised congressional hearings into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters have captured the attention of many Americans, but it is unclear if they will result in charges from the Justice Department. And a high-profile investigation by the office of the Manhattan district attorney into allegations that Trump inflated the value of his assets fell apart this year.
Some legal observers have argued that Trump’s actions, including his postelection phone calls to Georgia officials like Raffensperger, put him at risk of being indicted on charges of violating relatively straightforward Georgia criminal statutes, including criminal solicitation to commit election fraud. Willis, in court filings, has indicated that a number of other charges are possible, including racketeering and conspiracy, which could take in a broad roster of pro-Trump associates both inside and outside Georgia.
“I do believe that the great likelihood is that he’s heading towards an indictment,” said Norman Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment and who co-wrote a lengthy examination of the Georgia case by the Brookings Institution. Among other things, he said, “there is powerful proof of violations of Georgia law in the form of the smoking-gun tape of him demanding 11,780 votes, when it is perfectly clear from that tape that he knows those votes do not exist.”
Shafer and Jones were among the 16 alternate pro-Trump electors in Georgia; the state’s official electors cast their votes in the Electoral College for Joe Biden.
Beach’s name was mentioned in an email that a Georgia Trump campaign official sent to the pro-Trump electors Dec. 13, 2020, the day before the electors met at the Georgia state Capitol. That email, which was described in articles by The Washington Post and CNN last month, instructed them to meet with “complete secrecy and discretion,” and advised them to tell Capitol security personnel that they were attending a meeting with Beach and Jones.
Robert N. Driscoll, a lawyer for Shafer, has argued that there was “nothing secret or surreptitious” about the meeting of the pro-Trump electors. Driscoll noted that Shafer had filed a lawsuit challenging the Georgia election results that had not been ruled upon by Dec. 14, the date that presidential electors must cast their votes.
The alternate pro-Trump electors were convened “for the sole purpose of preserving a remedy in the event the lawsuit succeeded,” Driscoll said in a statement.
But Willis’ office, in recent subpoenas to potential witnesses in the case, has characterized the pro-Trump electors as being “part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.”
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Ev5Vl6z.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/DKkNIGi.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
