Was the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol an Act of ‘Terrorism’?
A sharp rebuke of Senator Ted Cruz by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson has heightened a legal and semantic debate over a charged term.
WASHINGTON — After a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol last year, many Democrats and Republicans alike denounced the riot using terms like “terrorism.” But many Republicans later backed away from such condemnations as they sought to realign themselves with former President Donald J. Trump.
The highest-profile example yet came on Thursday, when the Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused Senator Ted Cruz of purposefully lying because he had continued to call the events of Jan. 6 a terrorist attack, including at a Senate hearing this week.
Mr. Cruz, Republican of Texas, apologized, calling his phrasing “frankly dumb” and saying that he was referring only to those rioters who assaulted the police. Mr. Carlson, who has insinuated that Jan. 6 may have been a plot to justify a “purge” of Trump-supporting “patriots,” rejected Mr. Cruz’s explanation, citing his consistent use of that term over the past year to describe the Capitol attack.
Here is a closer look at the charged debate over the use of the word.
What is terrorism?
Essentially, it is politically motivated violence.
Denouncing Mr. Cruz, Mr. Carlson declared that “by no definition” was Jan. 6 “a terror attack.” But Congress has enacted a statute that defines domestic terrorism as criminal offenses that are dangerous to human life, lack a foreign nexus and appear to be seeking “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
Quote
Understand the Jan. 6 Investigation
Both the Justice Department and a House select committee are investigating the events of the Capitol riot. Here's where they stand:
- Inside the House Inquiry: From a nondescript office building, the panel has been quietly ramping up its sprawling and elaborate investigation. - Criminal Referrals, Explained: Can the House inquiry end in criminal charges? These are some of the issues confronting the committee. - Garland’s Remarks: Facing pressure from Democrats, Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed that the D.O.J. would pursue its inquiry into the riot “at any level.” - A Big Question Remains: Will the Justice Department move beyond charging the rioters themselves?
According to that definition, some of the events of Jan. 6 “were acts of domestic terrorism, and that’s accurate regardless of whether it applies to each individual,” said Mary McCord, who served as a senior Justice Department national security official in the Obama administration and into the early Trump era.
She added, “We are talking about acts that were dangerous to human life and that were in violation of criminal laws, and they were certainly done to influence government policy because they were trying to prevent the counting of Electoral College votes.”
Did all the Jan. 6 rioters commit life-endangering crimes?
No. More than 700 people have been charged to date in connection with the Capitol attack, and they are accused of a spectrum of crimes. Just as only some have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding, only some have been charged with violent offenses like assaulting police officers and destroying government property. Others have been charged only with nonviolent crimes, such as illegally entering a restricted building.
Mr. Cruz told Mr. Carlson that at the Senate hearing this week, he was not saying that “the thousands of peaceful protesters supporting Donald Trump are somehow terrorists.” Rather, he contended, he was merely using that term for people who attacked police officers — an explanation that Mr. Carlson, who agreed that such people should go to prison but maintained that they were not terrorists either, rejected.
On many occasions, Mr. Cruz has broadly called the assault on the Capitol an “act of terrorism” without specifically limiting his words to police assailants. In an interview a day after the riot, for example, he described the “terrorist attack” as “a traumatic experience for everyone in the building and everyone across the country,” and he referred to a rioter who “broke into the Senate chamber” and “did damage” as a “terrorist.”
Has anyone been charged ‘with terrorism’ over Jan. 6?
No. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Cruz, “How many people have been charged with terrorism on Jan. 6?” The answer is zero — but that fact is deeply misleading.
Congress — despite establishing a legal definition for “domestic terrorism” — has not created any stand-alone federal crime called that. As a result, it is not possible for prosecutors to charge any of the Jan. 6 rioters “with terrorism” regardless of whether they committed terrorist acts.
Might some defendants nevertheless face longer sentences for terrorism-related offenses?
Yes. Dozens of defendants are facing charges that will give prosecutors the opportunity to ask for longer sentences by invoking the context of domestic terrorism. It is not yet clear how harsh prosecutors and judges will be when it comes time to sentence uncooperative defendants who insist on going to trial and then get convicted, rather than striking plea deals.
In one statute, for example, Congress deemed about four dozen offenses as eligible to count as a “federal crime of terrorism” if the acts were “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” Under sentencing guidelines, such a conviction can result in a much longer prison term.
The list includes destruction of government property, a charge that 44 defendants are facing so far, according to the Justice Department’s tally of the Jan. 6 cases. The list also includes a “weapon of mass destruction” charge that may be brought if the F.B.I. finds whoever put pipe bombs outside the Capitol Hill headquarters of both major political parties the night before the riot.
In addition, two defendants so far have been charged with making false statements. Under a separate law, prosecutors can ask for a sentence of up to eight years, rather than the normal five, if such lies involve domestic terrorism.
Why is the terrorism label subject to dispute?
Because nobody likes terrorists. And as a matter of ordinary speech, as opposed to legal definitions, drawing the line between “terrorism” and less pejorative terms for politically motivated violence can be notoriously subjective.
“Why did you use that word?” Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Cruz.
He accused the senator of playing into a characterization by “the other side” seeking to smear the “entire population” of Trump supporters as “foreign combatants,” likening it to labels like “insurrection” and “coup.”
Notably, during the nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, Mr. Carlson called on the Justice Department to charge “every single person caught on camera torching a building, destroying a monument, defacing a church” with terrorism.
“Call them what they actually are — domestic terrorists,” he said, adding: “That would be their new government-approved title. Once they’re charged, it’s official. In fact, they are literally, as a factual matter, accused terrorists. And that would change minds right away.”
No, you can disagree, talk like a conservative and have an opposite point of view just like BEFORE THE ORANGE TRAITOR. But if you spew Trumpian talking points, openly support Trumpian politics, secretly support Trumpian politics but slip up, talk like you are a Q follower, or defend any of the crap that Trump and company pulled including the insurrection; then damn skippy we'll attack your ass. Fair or not, we don't care. When you support crap that leads to these divides, fascism, or a bigoted American revival of hate; well then you are a part of the problem, and we're better off without you. If after all the crap Trump has pulled, you still support him, then you don't deserve kindness nor understanding. And this doesn't make you a throw away person, we just want nothing to do with you in your current state of crap for brains. Hopefully being a Trumpian outcast like the known unvaccinated person without a medically sound reason to not get vaccinated, will motivate you to review your stinking thinking and realize you've been conned, lied to, and used by Trump. Else that iceberg you are sitting on is going to get smaller and smaller, with fewer and fewer like minds adrift with you, until you and yours just fade away. It's time for all troglodytes to go back to their holes.
The fact that think this about me shows you don't know me at all. You just make assumptions about me because I disagree with you and your ilk. Feel free to post links to all the posts where I defend trump or support the insurrectionists. Anti-liberal != pro-trump.
First, let me clarify that none of that was directed at you like an accusation, but just a response to your question in general. And it is exactly how I feel about those who still ardently support Trump. I have ZERO use for those people.
Second, I don't have a clue what your personal politics are. I did assume you are a conservative from your question, and it's pretty obvious you don't like being called a Trumpian. So, that is all I know and made no other assumptions about you, just answered what you asked. That is all.
You people assaulted Americans in the streets and in their businesses with all of your violent looting, arson, and rioting all of 2020. You are a far worse problem than stupidity at the capitol.
I did no such thing. And shame on you for calling BLM riots worse. They most certainly were not worse! You don't get much worse than being traitors and attacking the capitol building for an attempted coup! Wow, just wow.
lmao at libtards complaining about increasing the divide when they are 90% of the problem.
You don't see Conservatives on the warpath about libtard BS.
That might be because the "LIBTARDS" didn't have a bunch of idiotic jackwads that attacked the capital... As Karl Rove said, the Republicans would be going nuts on the Democrats if they'd have done this crap in 2016.
Try all you want, but you'll never be able to erase the damage the Trumpian wing of the Republican party did that day....
We aren't 90% of why anyone stormed the capital. Trump calling them to Washington, stop the steal lies, him and his cronies riling up the crowd then sending them to the capital are 100% of it.
From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787 To William Stephens Smith
Dear Sir
I am now to acknolege the receipt of your favors of October the 4th. 8th. and 26th. In the last you apologize for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to shew civilities to all the Americans who come here, and who will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, and how far I may go in my attentions to them.—Can you send me Woodmason’s bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la fayette, and the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article.—I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.—You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers.—The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform. Present my respects to Mrs. Smith, and be assured of the sincere esteem of Dear Sir Your friend & servant,
1. That’s ONE of our founding fathers. Don’t know how much you know about history, but Jefferson was pretty much alone in his zeal for frequent revolutions, when it came to the founding fathers. Here’s the funny thing about them: they were often bitter rivals, but they could function collectively when it came to governing. Imagine that.
2. He was a general advocate of revolutions that guaranteed people kept the power. His system of a democratic republic was relatively new and sweeping the world. That’s what he wanted to see. The proliferation of a weak central government with power given to the localities and people. Hence the Bill of Rights. He wasn’t exactly a fan of revolutions that subverted the power of the people to install a despot (see his thoughts on Napoleon).
3. By your same rationale, would the other instances of violence be justified?
4. To that end, what happens when a revolution is founded in both ignorance and wickedness?
I did no such thing. And shame on you for calling BLM riots worse. They most certainly were not worse! You don't get much worse than being traitors and attacking the capitol building for an attempted coup! Wow, just wow.
Attempted Coup? Why don't you Libs call it what it was? A peaceful protest that got out of hand. Now you guys can get back to burning down cities, ruining small business ambushing cops and looting stores. Funny we don't hear much about that stuff any more.
I did no such thing. And shame on you for calling BLM riots worse. They most certainly were not worse! You don't get much worse than being traitors and attacking the capitol building for an attempted coup! Wow, just wow.
Attempted Coup? Why don't you Libs call it what it was? A peaceful protest that got out of hand. Now you guys can get back to burning down cities, ruining small business ambushing cops and looting stores. Funny we don't hear much about that stuff any more.
You are a true TRUMPIAN...Not to be confused with a True Republican. You believe whatever you're told on FOX news...
This is stuff you won't see on FOX or OANN or Brietbart of anywhere else that wants to cover up your "peaceful protest"
Proud boys and oath keepers are facists and traitors.
Wannabe commando's.
They should be exiled from this country or put in prison for life.
And what would you do with Antifa?
Give them patriot medals for fighting fascism in the streets, just like the soldiers of WW2. You know, we used to be against Nazis here, back when republicans knew what it was to be patriotic.
Proud boys and oath keepers are facists and traitors.
Wannabe commando's.
They should be exiled from this country or put in prison for life.
And what would you do with Antifa?
Give them patriot medals for fighting fascism in the streets, just like the soldiers of WW2. You know, we used to be against Nazis here, back when republicans knew what it was to be patriotic.
We also used to be against Communism. Which is just as terrible.
True, but there are no communists in this equation. Just fascists led by Trump. Antifa stands for antifascists, not communists. The only people screaming look at the communists are the fascists… smh.
True, but there are no communists in this equation. Just fascists led by Trump. Antifa stands for antifascists, not communists. The only people screaming look at the communists are the fascists… smh.
Go loves you OCD!!! I am not sure how but I know he does!!!
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: ... For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: ... For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
Good luck.
Your eyes and ears don't lie. Unless you're a Trumpian.
More excuses for an insurrection. Our forefathers most likely would have hanged them by the neck until dead for treason.
Uh, perhaps you can tell us all how many of the protesters have been charged with Insurrection? Treason?
Here's a hint... NONE
Why do you think that is?
Hint... The Government would lose the case because it was NOT AN INSURRECTION AND NO ONE COMMITTED TREASON!
please carry on with making your mud pies.
Parring down the charges to what will stick in a jury has little to do with proving your point, insurrectionists, and traitors are the labels that fit for general use, NOT RIOTERS.
Are Jan. 6 rioters traitors? So far, criminal charges say no
CHICAGO (AP) — Plotted to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory: Check. Discussed bringing weapons into Washington to aid in the plan: Check. Succeeded with co-insurrectionists, if only temporarily, in stopping Congress from carrying out a vital constitutional duty: Check.
Accusations against Jan. 6 rioter Thomas Caldwell certainly seem to fit the charge of sedition as it’s generally understood — inciting revolt against the government. And the possibility of charging him and others was widely discussed after thousands of pro-Trump supporters assaulted scores of police officers, defaced the U.S. Capitol and hunted for lawmakers to stop the certification. Some called their actions treasonous.
But to date, neither Caldwell nor any of the other more than 500 defendants accused in the attack has been indicted for sedition or for the gravest of crimes a citizen can face, treason. And as an increasing number of lesser charges are filed and defendants plead guilty, those accusations may never be formally levied.
Some legal scholars say that sedition charges could be justified but that prosecutors may be reluctant to bring them because of their legal complexity and the difficulty historically in securing convictions. Overzealousness in applying them going back centuries has also discredited their use. And defense attorneys say discussions of such charges only add to the hyperbole around the events of that day.
Overall, the bar for proving sedition isn’t as high as it is for the related charge of treason. Still, sedition charges have been rare.
The last time U.S. prosecutors brought such a case was in 2010 in an alleged Michigan plot by members of the Hutaree militia to incite an uprising against the government. But a judge ordered acquittals on the sedition conspiracy charges at a 2012 trial, saying prosecutors relied too much on hateful diatribes protected by the First Amendment and didn’t, as required, prove the accused ever had detailed plans for a rebellion.
Among the last successful convictions for seditious conspiracy stemmed from another, now largely forgotten storming of the Capitol in 1954 when four Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire on the House floor, wounding five representatives.
Treason is one of the few crimes specifically defined in the Constitution. It’s defined as “levying war” against the U.S. or “giving aid and comfort” to its enemies. Legal scholars say the Founding Fathers, who were themselves accused of treason by the British, sought to clearly articulate it because they knew the potential to misapply it to legitimate dissent.
In a landmark ruling in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that treason required a citizen actually go to war against the United States, not to just brainstorm or draw up plans for it. Even recruiting and training rebels for war, he argued, isn’t treason if war is never engaged.
In the history of the U.S., the government has convicted fewer than 10 people for treason, according to the FBI.
Among the last treason cases was of American-born Iva Toguri D’Aquino — known as “Tokyo Rose” during World War II for her anti-American broadcasts — convicted in 1949 of “giving aid and comfort” to Japan. President Gerald Ford pardoned her in 1977 after reports U.S. authorities pressured some witnesses to lie.
The only American charged with treason since the World II era was Adam Gadahn, indicted in 2006 for giving “aid and comfort” to al-Qaida. Before he could be tried, he was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan.
Carlton Larson, a University of California law professor and author of “On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law,” ruled out treason for the Jan. 6 rioters. But he believes some qualify for a provision of seditious conspiracy on “hindering” the execution of U.S. laws. “I think it easily fits,” he said.
Last summer, then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen sent a memo allowing federal prosecutors to consider sedition charges against police reform demonstrators, particularly in Portland, Oregon, where clashes between rioters and federal authorities raged outside a federal courthouse. It was never used.
But the memo said the Justice Department believed the statute doesn’t require proof of a plot to overthrow the government and could also be used when a defendant tries to oppose the government’s authority by force.
In the weeks after the Capitol attack, federal prosecutors said they were looking at all possible charges. Washington’s then-acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on March 17 that prosecutors were mulling seditious conspiracy charges against some rioters.
“I believe the facts do support those charges,” Sherwin said. “And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”
He had first floated the possibility in January, saying a special group of prosecutors was examining whether they would apply to any rioters. The Justice Department did not respond to questions about what happened to that group, or why no sedition charges were ever brought. And Sherwin’s comments were criticized by a federal judge and defense lawyers who said it was inappropriate to discuss ongoing investigations publicly. He left the Justice Department soon after.
The Justice Department is continuing its work to prosecute a record number of cases. But they have so far opted for comparatively run-of-the-mill charges, like entering a restricted area and obstructing an official proceeding. Caldwell faces those charges, as well as conspiracy, which, like sedition, carries a maximum 20-year prison term. Treason carries a possible death sentence.
He has been charged alongside other members and associates of the far-right Oath Keepers extremist group with conspiring to block the vote certification. He later boasted in a message to a friend about grabbing an American flag, joining the crowd that surged toward the Capitol and saying “let’s storm the place and hang the traitors.” The 65-year-old from Virginia told his friend, “If we’d had guns I guarantee we would have killed 100 politicians.”
Defense attorneys say hyperbole has been a hallmark of the Jan. 6 prosecutions.
“If grandiose rhetoric was evidence, the Government’s case would be very strong,” Caldwell’s lawyer, David Fischer, wrote in one filing. He didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.
In filings, Fischer also said prosecutors took his client’s words out of context to falsely accuse an ailing 20-year military veteran. He said Caldwell, like many veterans, was prone to puffery and enjoyed portraying himself in recounting his actions on Jan. 6 as a movie character who picks up a battle flag to lead the charge.
Fischer also asked Caldwell’s Washington judge this month to transfer Caldwell’s case to another city on grounds Sherwin’s comments regarding sedition would prejudice jurors.
On Jan. 5, another rioter, Guy Reffitt, allegedly spoke of “dragging … people out of the Capitol by their ankles” and installing a new government. The 48-year-old Texan came prepared for battle on Jan. 6, carrying a gun and wearing body armor as he pushed through Capitol police lines as officers shot him with rubber bullets, prosecutors said.
Charges against Reffitt include entering a restricted building with a deadly weapon, as well as obstructing justice by threatening his teenage children. The oil industry consultant allegedly told them later in January they’d be traitors if they turned him in. He added, “Traitors get shot.”
In an unapologetic note written from jail and filed with the court in May, Reffitt denied there had ever been a conspiracy, and provided a chilling reason.
“If overthrow (of the government) was the quest,” Reffitt wrote about Jan. 6, “it would have no doubt been overthrown.”
___
Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo in Washington and Alanna Durkin Richer in Boston contributed to this report.
'I can't answer that': FBI executive assistant director REFUSES to tell Ted Cruz if any agents or confidential informants 'actively participated' in Jan 6: Cruz demands more information on 'plant' Ray Epps
It’s pretty obvious that you can’t talk about stuff like that. If you work in any sort of programs involving classified information or informants, you can’t get into stuff like that in a public forum. Ted knows that, too. That’s why he’s asking the question because he knew that was the answer that was coming.
Cruz is trying to make up for pissing off Tucker Carlson. I mean the dude just called them terrorists a few days ago and now he’s bringing in the FBI. Also he now speaks up about the DOJ and FBI as being partisan and arrogant, as if he wasn’t paying attention the previous four years.
If they would stop selecting to only listen to those who support what they want to hear they would have known this. But they don't. You see, even the video I posted doesn't tell the entire story.You didn't see the part that substantiates exactly what you said....
“Sir, I’m sure you can appreciate that I can’t go into the specifics of sources and methods,” Sanborn replied.
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: ... For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
Good luck.
Wow,, so, I guess if you break into my house, you can spout off a bible quote and all is OK.....
NOBODY was judging them for actions prior to breaking into the capital...... But for the breakin,, they should be judged... Harshly... They broke the law, they were NOT peaceful.. They went there with a purpose..
'I can't answer that': FBI executive assistant director REFUSES to tell Ted Cruz if any agents or confidential informants 'actively participated' in Jan 6: Cruz demands more information on 'plant' Ray Epps
Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy in January 6 case
Rhodes, 56, is the first defendant to be charged with sedition in connection with the assault on the U.S. Capitol last year.
WASHINGTON — Oath Keepers president Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and 10 other members of the militia group have been indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy, according to the Justice Department – marking the first defendants to be charged with sedition in connection with the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
Rhodes, 56, was arrested Thursday at his home in Granbury, Texas, on one count of seditious conspiracy. Another defendant, Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, was arrested on four counts, including seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties. The other nine defendants indicted in the case are Oath Keepers who have previously been charged in connection with the Capitol riot.
PREVIOUS
The first group of more than a dozen Oath Keepers charged in the January 6 Capitol riot is scheduled to begin trial in April, but as that date approaches, one of their attorneys wants to know: How you can prosecute a conspiracy case without charging their leader?
Carmen Hernandez, who’s representing defendant Donovan Crowl in the government’s largest January 6 case, said it hampers her and other defense attorneys’ ability to plan for trial when they don’t know whether the organization’s leader, Stewart Rhodes, is going to be a co-defendant.
“Frankly,” Hernandez told U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta during a hearing Monday, “I don’t see how any Oath Keepers conspiracy charge can be tried” without Rhodes in the mix.
Rhodes, a Yale-educated lawyer and U.S. Army veteran, founded the Oath Keepers in Nevada in 2009. The group attempts to recruit military veterans, police officers and first responders to “defend the Constitution,” according to its website. Prior to January 6, Oath Keepers members have been involved in a number of conflicts with government officials, including the 2014 standoff between the Bundy Family and the Bureau of Land Management. One of the group’s members, Daniel Knight Hayden, of Oklahoma, was sentenced to eight months in prison for threatening violence against government officials.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Oath Keepers as a “fiercely anti-government militaristic group” fueled by Rhodes’ own “conspiracy-flamed convictions.” The Anti-Defamation League places the Oath Keepers within the larger “Patriot” movement that believes “the federal government has been coopted by a shadowy conspiracy that is trying to strip Americans of their rights.”
The Justice Department has alleged extensive involvement by Oath Keepers in the events of January 6 – everything from providing private security for Roger Stone to planning “quick reaction forces” of armed members outside D.C. More than 20 members of the militia group have been indicted in a multi-state conspiracy case alleging they plotted in the weeks leading up to January 6 to disrupt the joint session of Congress. At least three of the defendants in that case have already agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecution. One, Mark Grods, has agreed to testify that the group conspired to bring paramilitary gear and supplies – including firearms, camouflaged combat uniforms and radios – and to forcibly storm past the exterior barricades to enter the U.S. Capitol Building.
Another Oath Keeper – heavy metal guitarist Jon Schaffer, who has self-described as a founding member of the group – was the first January 6 defendant to accept a plea offer in the case. He was also expected to cooperate with investigators looking into the group.
Rhodes appears repeatedly as “Person 1” in court documents related to the Oath Keepers cases. In charging documents against New Jersey resident and alleged Oath Keepers organizer James Breheny, investigators say they obtained communications showing Rhodes took part in a leadership meeting of “multiple patriot groups” on January 3.
In plea documents for another Oath Keeper, Graydon Young – who allegedly helped recruit his sister and co-defendant, Laura Steele, into the organization – prosecutors say they’ve identified footage of Young and other Oath Keepers regrouping less than 100 feet from the Capitol building with Rhodes after the “stack” had entered the Capitol.
During the riot, according to Signal chats obtained by investigators, Rhodes is alleged to have been in communication with Oath Keepers at the Capitol.
“All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough,” Rhodes allegedly wrote in a Signal chat an hour before the “stack” entered the building. authorities say.
Rhodes has not, to date, been charged in connection with January 6 – although that does not mean he has escaped legal woes. In August, seven U.S. Capitol Police officers named Rhodes and other members of the Oath Keepers, along with former President Donald Trump, in a civil suit accusing them of violating the Ku Klux Klan Act and committing acts of domestic terrorism.
Rhodes is also one of numerous individuals subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee as part of its own investigation into what happened at the Capitol. In a letter to Rhodes dated November 23, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said Rhodes, in a statement on the militia’s website, had called on Oath Keepers to prepare for a “full-on war in the streets.” Rhodes gave a speech on December 12 in D.C. calling on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, “warning that the Oath Keepers would mount a ‘much more desperate [and] much more bloody war’ if he did not do so.” Thompson also wrote that multiple Oath Keepers were captured on video on or around January 6 outside the Willard Hotel – which the committee has honed in on as the “command center” for events surrounding the “Stop the Steal” rally.
The first group of Oath Keepers is set to begin trial at the beginning of April, although prosecutors suggested Monday they may want additional time to resume plea discussions after Mehta rules on a challenge brought by the defendants against the obstruction charge in the case. The Oath Keepers are among a group of January 6 defendants challenging the DOJ’s application of that statute by arguing that the joint session of Congress was not an “official proceeding” under the letter of the law.
Yep, 40 and whoever else is beating that drum can stop now. I like that they finally charged somebody with sedition. That means all the higher ups will get that kind of charge too! Might get to see Trump swing yet.
It's not a "story" - it's not speculation. Those fake results WERE sent and they were sent from the 5 states that would have helped swing the result to Trump.
So once again - there is evidence of Voter Fraud and once again it is the Republicans perpetrating it.
This is the closest thing I have seen that would show a coordinated and planned attempt to subvert the election. It didn't happen randomly - hopefully there is evidence to follow and identify the leaders and planners.
And have you noticed Republicans are avoiding commenting on this like the plague. The party claiming they are passing laws to make voting stricter to stop fraud that doesn't exist by the people they are trying to prevent from voting, are the ones committing voter fraud themselves.
I guess it really is true that when you are guilty of something the natural reaction is to blame others for the very thing you yourself are guilty of.
Now you’re just rambling. When did I say I was worried about the GOP stealing an election? Last I saw it was a bunch of right wing extremists trying to stop a legit one from going through.
I guess it really is true that when you are guilty of something the natural reaction is to blame others for the very thing you yourself are guilty of.
You talking about the 2020 election here?
Hmmmmmm
OMG..., are you really still believing that the 2020 Election was fraudulent? NO evidence to prove it,,, just a bunch of fools that still believe Mike Lindel and Donald Trump...
Deflection is all he knows. Accountability left his vocabulary in 2015 when Trump announced he was running for president. It become an epidemic more contagious among Republicans than Covid.
Click on a poster's name and you will get a drop down tab. Select view profile There will be a section of white tabs the 1st is private message and the last is ignore user.
Private Message Add Friend Follow User Ignore User
Click ignore user
When they post you see this: *** You are ignoring this user *** Toggle the display of this post
If you click on it you can read the post You can also take them off ignore shoould you choose
In many states they're trying to stack the deck so it won't. Trump is actively promoting the election of other candidates in cases where anyone stood up for a fair election which insured he lost. He is trying to help elect Trump loyalists who would in fact help him and other Republicans steal the next election.
In Bid for Control of Elections, Trump Loyalists Face Few Obstacles
A movement animated by Donald J. Trump’s 2020 election lies is turning its attention to 2022 and beyond.
House can get Trump White House documents, Supreme Court rules.
Say goodbye to the Orange Brat.
It will prove what the traitor was doing all along.
yes, SCOTUS voted to Allow the records to be released.. The only Justice that was against the release,, Thomas. The same one whos wife thought the Jan 6 Rioters were victims.
Some in the GOP did try to steal an election, and failed.
System working as intended.
Someday I'd like to see Trumpians excuse for this.. I mean, really. How do they explain this? So far, fake electors in Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan. I think they had a group in PA but not sure. I'd like to hear the explanation for Trumps actions on the Phone Call to Raffensburger (sp). Lots of witnesses and a recording. I'd like them to defend that as anything other than a feeble attempt by a desperate man trying to save face and himself from prosecution.
In the swing states Ga., Pa., Wi., Mi., Nm., Ar., Nv., Giulaini lined up supporters to fill elector slots, secured meeting rooms in statehouses for the fake electors to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of fake certificates that were ultimately sent to the National Archives.
These are republicans who were ready, willing, and able to steal a presidential election.
The same group of people who have been spewing that the election was stolen.
This is unreal to me. And these people call themselves Americans.
In the swing states Ga., Pa., Wi., Mi., Nm., Ar., Nv., Giulaini lined up supporters to fill elector slots, secured meeting rooms in statehouses for the fake electors to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of fake certificates that were ultimately sent to the National Archives.
These are republicans who were ready, willing, and able to steal a presidential election.
The same group of people who have been spewing that the election was stolen.
This is unreal to me. And these people call themselves Americans.
Corruption knows no bounds.
If that is not treason what is?
Be interesting if any of the Trumpians want to try and justify or suggest this isn't a big deal! Maybe they were all just arranging tourist visits to their statehouses.
In so many ways I am disheartened by people inside the republican party and the voters supporting them.
And I am not against conservative republicans or the republican party before trump.
trump has poisoned the people of this country. He raised a platform of bigotry and lies and empowered hatred of others. And many jumped on board as followers.
it is disgusting behavior for a country founded upon the constitution.
I am assuming you have all seen the report on the draft proposal/plan to have the Nat Guard seize all the voting machines? LOL.
Nothing to see here - it wasn't enacted. It was just a draft !! lmfao. I think some of these Trump supporters would have had their head explode if Obama or Hilary had some sort of draft plan like this. It's beyond belief.
trump's entire existence has been based upon corruption, fraud, and lies.
When he was five years old. His father was "gifting" him money to avoid taxes. Large amounts of money half million a year.
When he graduated from high school. He paid someone to take his college entrance exams.
When he entered his father's real estate business it was proved in court that they were practicing discrimating policies aimed at not allowing Blacks to rent any of their properties.
He bankrupted casinos. He didn't pay contractors who worked on his properties. trunp university was proven to be a fraud.
His entire life has been based upon corruption, quid pro quo and fraud.
Then he lied about the pandemic and false drugs to cure it.
Then Jan 6th.
And now with 700 pages of documents are going to the House documenting his actions of coup attempt.
And yes, now evidence of a plan to have the National Guard seize voting machines.
What a resume? Right.
One of the most corrupt, evil people to be born on earth.
Draft Trump order suggested seizing voting machines based on Antrim irregularities
A draft presidential order written while President Donald Trump was still in office suggested using a conspiracy theory involving voting irregularities in Antrim County in the 2020 election to justify the Defense Department seizing voting machines.
The order, which was never issued and was part of a group of documents Trump and administration officials had tried to shield from a U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was first reported on Friday by Politico, which obtained and released a copy of it.
As Politico noted, it wasn't clear who wrote the order and how seriously, if at all, it was ever considered by the Trump administration. It also wasn't clear what machines might be seized, though it references events in Michigan and in Georgia, another state where Trump and his allies disputed the result.
Meanwhile, the order referenced widely debunked concerns about voting machines in Antrim and elsewhere as justification for the Defense Department to seize and analyze voting machines, an unheard of step in U.S. history.
It also called for that analysis to be turned over to federal intelligence officials and a special counsel to be appointed to consider criminal charges. The draft order was dated Dec. 16, 2020, as Trump and his supporters continued to advance baseless claims of voting machine irregularities and fraud that cost him the election to President Joe Biden in several key swing states, including Michigan. A mob attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress met to certify the results showing Biden as the winner.
The House committee is looking into "the facts, circumstances and causes" of that attack.
The second paragraph of the draft order begins, "I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, find that the forensic report of the Antrim County, Michigan voting machines, released December 13, 2020, and other evidence submitted to me in support of this order, provide probable cause sufficient to require action... because of evidence of international and foreign interference in the November 3, 2020, election."
The order went on to make allegations of vulnerabilities in the Dominion Voting System machines used by Antrim County and many other jurisdictions that they somehow allowed votes to be changed. Those claims have been debunked, as have claims that the company was controlled by foreign enemies of the U.S.
Antrim County became a center of the controversy after it initially reported unofficial results showing Biden winning the staunchly Republican county. But officials there quickly determined that changes in the ballot made in some precincts, but not all, led to the initial misreading and it was caught and fixed, showing Trump as the winner.
A outside consultant's report, cited in the draft executive order, tried to make the case that the voting system used in Antrim was "intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results." A hand tally of the county's results showed a net gain of just 12 votes for Trump, a far from unusual change following a hand count.
Attorney General William Barr, it has been reported, told Trump personally there was no widespread fraud in the election. And on the day the draft order was written, Dec. 16, Chris Krebs, the former chief of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, called the report cited in the order "factually inaccurate," as the Free Press reported at the time.
"I'm seeing these reports that are factually inaccurate continue to be promoted," Krebs told a Senate committee. "We have to stop this. It's undermining confidence in democracy."
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Draft order suggested seizing voting machines based on Antrim issues
Georgia to impanel grand jury in probe of Trump bid to overturn 2020 election
Jan 24 (Reuters) - The Georgia prosecutor investigating then-U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state will be allowed to seat a special grand jury to subpoena witnesses to testify against him.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week sought to have a special grand jury aid her investigation into the Republican leader's efforts to pressure officials in a state where he lost to Joe Biden. read more
The Fulton County Superior Court approved the request on Monday, according to a court filing. The grand jury will commence on May 2 and convene for up to a year.
A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A Democrat, Willis launched the investigation after Trump was recorded in a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss. Raffensperger declined.
The transcript quotes Trump telling Raffensperger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes," which is the number Trump needed to win Georgia. Trump has for months before and after the November 2020 election made false claims of voter fraud.
Jan 24 (Reuters) - The Georgia prosecutor investigating then-U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state will be allowed to seat a special grand jury to subpoena witnesses to testify against him.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week sought to have a special grand jury aid her investigation into the Republican leader's efforts to pressure officials in a state where he lost to Joe Biden. read more
The Fulton County Superior Court approved the request on Monday, according to a court filing. The grand jury will commence on May 2 and convene for up to a year.
A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A Democrat, Willis launched the investigation after Trump was recorded in a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss. Raffensperger declined.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks at a news conference in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., May 11, 2021. Picture taken May 11, 2021. REUTERS/Linda So
The transcript quotes Trump telling Raffensperger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes," which is the number Trump needed to win Georgia. Trump has for months before and after the November 2020 election made false claims of voter fraud.
In a statement last week, Trump defended what he called his "perfect" phone call.
Legal experts have said Trump's phone calls may have violated at least three state election laws: conspiracy to commit election fraud, criminal solicitation to commit election fraud and intentional interference with performance of election duties. The possible felony and misdemeanor violations are punishable by fines or imprisonment.
In a recent court filing, Willis specifically mentioned that Raffensperger, whom she described as an "essential witness," had indicated he would only take part in an interview once presented with a subpoena.
In Georgia, a special grand jury can issue subpoenas forcing witnesses to testify but cannot issue indictments. Unlike a traditional grand jury, a special grand jury is devoted to just one case, making it a powerful investigative tool.
Oh the Trump supporting posters that will still publically admit it, will never admit they were wrong. They are still trying to blame progressives and antifa. Or trotting out their latest whataboutism and other Russian/Trumpian deception tactics. Never in my life would I have thought there would be so many traitorous American sympathizers for a POTUS who attempted to end democracy with a coup in the USA. How damn shameful can you act, anyway? Nope, now they just pile on Biden with garbage everyday thinking/hoping the distraction will somehow justify the way Republicans act or make us forget all the crap Trump did. SMH, I don't even recognize America anymore. The world now thinks Americans are bat crap crazy thanks to Trumpism. I see no way that this country could survive another POTUS like him or this iteration of the GOP moving forward.
And I don't want it to happen, but I think we will experience an insurgent type civil war before we rid ourselves of this Trumpism plague. And this is all the more reason to make SURE those responsible for the 6th pay the heftiest of prices.
However, it must be remembered trump lost the popular vote twice. The second time by around 8 million votes.
I think it highly unlikely that those who voted against trump would change their minds.
Independents Biden won 52% to 43%.
Now with the recent news that SCOTUS will allow all the documents to go to Congress. The other slime ball things like the call to Georgia to get him the votes, the voting machines being seized, Giuliani and the fake elector scheme is all exposed.
The over head light will not make the orange brat look to good.
So just maybe the country will move away from the poison trump brought.
Trump Senate Pick Tells Crowd to ‘Lock and Load’ to Combat Election Fraud
A candidate for the Michigan state Senate advised a crowd of apparent prospective poll workers to “show up armed” in order to “make sure justice is wrought” and avoid election fraud, according to footage of the meeting posted to social media on Sunday. In the video, Mike Detmer, a Trump endorsee, can be seen speaking to a crowd with Michigan gubernatorial candidate Ryan D. Kelley. Detmer explains that if “we can’t change the tide… we need to be prepared to lock and load.” His remarks follow Kelley’s advice to the group, also captured in the footage: “If you see something you don’t like happening with the [voting] machines, if you see something wrong, unplug it from the wall.” Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, was quick to respond to the footage on Sunday, noting that it is illegal to tamper with tabulation devices or attempt to intimidate voters through the use of firearms. Detmer seemed pleased with the attention, tweeting, “Hey Dana… MOLAN LABE!” in a misspelling of the ancient Greek saying—and favorite expression of the far-right—molon labe, meaning, “Come and take them.”
Yet another Republican telling people to commit criminal acts.
It was a toss up between posting this in what Republicans have become and here. Since it's involved with the big lie that caused Jan. 6th in the first place I posted it here.
"If you ever had any doubt whatsoever that former Vice President Mike Pence was a duplicitous, disloyal POS, this stunning article will remove any doubt. Pence and his staff of 'political advisors' were working to undermine President Trump [and replace him with Mike Pence] from day ONE," right-wing strategist Roger Stone wrote in a message to his Telegram subscribers on Thursday. Stone linked to a Substack article written by Emerald Robinson, titled The Treachery of VP Mike Pence Explained.
Steve Bannon, who served as CEO of Trump's 2016 campaign, called Pence a "coward" in a segment of his War Room podcast on Friday. "Pence, you're going to carry this thing eventually to your grave, OK?" Bannon said. "Because it is a mark of shame. You are a stone-cold coward."
Bannon and Stone share the banner with trump. Traitors plural of traitor.
At the very least they should be all be exiled from all American territories. Their citizenship should be revoked.
They are not Americans. They don't deserve the honour None of them have done a thing for this country except plot to overthrow a fair and proven election.
In any other time and place in history. They would be tried and executed.
During the Friday edition of his War Room: Pandemic podcast, Bannon dubbed Pence a "stone-cold coward" for daring to challenge Trump's false claim that he had the power to legally overturn the outcome. Bannon argued that Pence's rebuke of Trump was a "mark of shame."
"Pence, you're going to carry this thing eventually to your grave, OK?" said Bannon. "Because it is a mark of shame. And you are a stone-cold coward. A stone-cold coward."
Bannon also blasted Pence's former Chief of Staff Marc Short for earlier this week testifying to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
"My head's blowing up," Bannon said. "I can't take Pence. And I can't take Pence and Marc Short and all these Koch guys up there ratting out Trump up on Capitol Hill right now."
Both. He’s a very calculated politician. I think he’s trying to stave off what many see as being an inevitable fracture in the party where the controlling portion is one that cannot sustainably hold a majority.
Mitch sees the big ass legal broom that's about to sweep through his party and would prefer to hold the dust pan, then to be swept away with the debris of crumbling Trumpism.
You guys are funny.Year and a half later and you are still running around with your hair on fire. Who do you lefties think Republicans should vote for? Biden , Kamela, AOC ? and you call us traders?
You guys are funny.Year and a half later and you are still running around with your hair on fire. Who do you lefties think Republicans should vote for? Biden , Kamela, AOC ? and you call us traders?
I have never called you a trader. I might have said traitor, traitorous, or even nincompoop… but never trader. And you should vote for whom you want. We just wish you could see truth and become an educated voter before casting your vote for the worst people on earth. And we don't care if you are republican or not, as long as you are not a Trumpian insurrectionist trying to bring down our democracy. You still have the right to vote for whom you want, we just want that person to be part of a party that still fights for and works to make our democracy a better place. That's not who the Republican Party is right now. Nope, they think insurrections are normal political discourse.
You guys are funny.Year and a half later and you are still running around with your hair on fire. Who do you lefties think Republicans should vote for? Biden , Kamela, AOC ? and you call us traders?
I have never called you a trader. I might have said traitor, traitorous, or even nincompoop… but never trader. And you should vote for whom you want. We just wish you could see truth and become an educated voter before casting your vote for the worst people on earth. And we don't care if you are republican or not, as long as you are not a Trumpian insurrectionist trying to bring down our democracy. You still have the right to vote for whom you want, we just want that person to be part of a party that still fights for and works to make our democracy a better place. That's not who the Republican Party is right now. Nope, they think insurrections are normal political discourse.
Guess that old “times up” shtick isn't going to catch on this time around. It's almost as if some people attempted a coup and expect time to just blow it all away quietly. Funny how reality never sinks all the way in with these people.
You guys are funny.Year and a half later and you are still running around with your hair on fire. Who do you lefties think Republicans should vote for? Biden , Kamela, AOC ? and you call us traders?
I have never called you a trader. I might have said traitor, traitorous, or even nincompoop… but never trader. And you should vote for whom you want. We just wish you could see truth and become an educated voter before casting your vote for the worst people on earth. And we don't care if you are republican or not, as long as you are not a Trumpian insurrectionist trying to bring down our democracy. You still have the right to vote for whom you want, we just want that person to be part of a party that still fights for and works to make our democracy a better place. That's not who the Republican Party is right now. Nope, they think insurrections are normal political discourse.
Spell check? Computer error?
Yes, that happens. Meh, it was either me or any number of others.
What do you call someone who tries to overthrow an election that was proven in the courts to be valid?
His oath of office is to perform the transfer of power when the election is proven valid.
Then he did everything possible to corrupt the election and take control of the office of the presidency. Then he incited others to storm the capitol and take over the election process.
What do you call someone who tries to overthrow an election that was proven in the courts to be valid?
His oath of office is to perform the transfer of power when the election is proven valid.
Then he did everything possible to corrupt the election and take control of the office of the presidency. Then he incited others to storm the capitol and take over the election process.
Have read the Constitution?
If that is not treason what is?
It sounds like you are describing nothing more than "legitimate political discourse"
Jan. 6 rioter who pleaded guilty dies by suicide ahead of sentencing
A Pennsylvania man who last year pleaded guilty to multiple charges in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack killed himself last week while awaiting trial.
As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, the Mercer County Coroner's office confirmed on Tuesday that Matt Perna had died by suicide. He was 37 years old.
Perna's family said he died of a "broken heart," and partly blamed the government and the prosecution for his death, per the Post-Gazette.
"His community, which he loved, his country and the justice system killed his spirit and his zest for life," Perna's obituary read, according to the outlet. "The constant delays in hearings and postponements dragged out for over a year. Because of this, Matt's heart broke and his spirit died and many people are responsible for the pain he endured."
According to court documents, Perna travelled to Washington, D.C., from Pennsylvania on Jan. 6 to attend the "Stop the Steal" rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol.
At around 2:47 p.m., Perna, who was wearing a "Make America Great Again" sweatshirt, entered the Capitol through the Senate Wing door and stayed inside the building for about 20 minutes, taking video of the crowd while inside, per court documents. Following the Capitol breach, Perna uploaded a video on social media saying, "The purpose of today was to expose Pence as a traitor."
Perna's family said he went to the rally on Jan. 6 to "peacefully stand up for his beliefs" and claimed that he was "ushered in" by police officers, according to the Post-Gazette, though prosecutors accused him of entering a building he knew he did not have permission to enter.
"For this act he has been persecuted by many members of his community, friends, relatives and people who had never met him," Perna's obituary read, according to the outlet.
Perna pleaded guilty to all four charges he faced, including obstruction of an official proceeding, in December. His sentencing had been set for April 1.
So he takes part in a traitorous insurrection, trying to end our democracy, then offs himself. Now the family blames prosecutors, the criminal justice system, and people who didn't commit treason for his death. PFFFT.
On January 6 at 12:14 pm ET, as it was becoming increasingly clear that there was a Trump-inspired riot brewing at the US Capitol, Jacob was unequivocal in his rejection of Eastman’s theories.
“I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up,” Jacob wrote Eastman. “And thanks to your [censored], we are now under siege.”
To which Eastman responds: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.”
In his next response, Jacob drops the hammer: “The advice provided has, whether intended or not, functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States, the most powerful office in the entire world. And here we are.”
Jacob went on:
“Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets.The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.”
I think we all watched as Trump tried to use the office of the AG as his own personal lawyer.. So while some might think of Barr as a RINO (a name put forth by Jeff Christy as a form of Name Calling.. Something Trumpians do when they can't think of anything else to say.), I think this is the most responsible thing he could do... Yeah, he's doing it because he's got a book coming out.. I get that. But it still takes courage to do it because we know how Trump is,, he'll sue the crap out of Barr... He won't win, but he will sue.. For sure
The only thing I'm disappointed about is that he didn't speak up before. He knew he was being used as a tool by Trump...
Barr was a POS with regard to the disgraceful lies he told regarding the Muller Report. He certainly allowed the office to be abused by Trump on multiple occasions.
It seems Barr, Pence and a few others who I still do not personally 'like' reached a point where King trump keep pushing the boundaries. Kept abusing his office and authority. And eventually they said "that's a step too far".
I think Barr's reputation forever needs to be tarnished as a POS lackey to Trump. But yes - thankfully he reached a point where he knew there was no "plausible deniability" angle to the outright lies Trump wanted to peddle.
Texas militia man found guilty on five charges in government's first court victory from Capitol riot
WASHINGTON–A federal court jury delivered guilty verdicts Tuesday against a Texas militia man on all five criminal counts in a case stemming from the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including interfering with the certification of the 2020 election, in the first jury trial to emerge from the government’s far-reaching investigation of the insurrection.
Guy Wesley Reffitt, 49, looked on as the decisions were read, concluding a fast-moving case in which prosecutors portrayed the Wylie, Texas oil industry worker, as a leader of a violent mob that overwhelmed police lines just outside the Senate chamber.
The jury reached its decision after less than three hours of deliberation. Reffitt's sentencing was scheduled for June 8.
Reffitt faces a maximum punishment of 20 years for each of the two obstruction-related offenses; and a maximum of 10 years for entering restricted grounds with a firearm. Each of the two civil disorder convictions carry a maximum of five years in prison.
For the government, the verdicts marked a successful first test of evidence and witnesses before a jury whose members were drawn from neighborhoods in close proximity to the Capitol, which had been transformed into a battlefield on Jan. 6.
And for other Jan. 6 defendants, including 10 members of the extremist Oath Keepers group accused of seditious conspiracy, the Reffitt case will likely be viewed as a template of sorts as those defendants ultimately determine whether to challenge the most serious charges leveled so far before other D.C. juries.
In the case of Reffitt, a member of the paramilitary Three Percenters, prosecutors drew on reels of surveillance video, testimony from Capitol Police officers, a fellow militia member and the defendant's estranged son to portray a rioter described as the "tip of this mob's spear."
Reffitt, prosecutors said, planned his excursion to D.C. for days and then plunged into the crowd with a handgun holstered to his waist while talking of physically removing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"We’re taking the Capitol before the day is over," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler said, referring to messages the defendant allegedly sent to associates.
"I just want to see Pelosi’s head hitting every f------ stair on the way out," Reffitt allegedly boasted in another message.
Reffitt's attorney, William Welch, told jurors that his client was merely prone to hyperbole, suggesting that his involvement was more talk than action.
"Guy does brag a lot," Welch said, repeating a theme from his opening statement last week. "He uses a lot of hyperbole that upsets people. People say outrageous things."
Welch called no witnesses for the defense, with Reffitt electing not to testify. But the attorney called on jurors to closely scrutinize government witnesses, including another Three Percenter, Rocky Hardie, who is cooperating with the government as part of an immunity agreement. Hardie traveled with Reffitt to Washington and detailed his preparations, including the firearms they brought with them.
"You should doubt Rocky Hardie," Welch said, adding the witness would "say whatever he has to say" to avoid prosecution himself.
Welch also questioned the testimony offered by Reffitt's son, who the attorney claimed was unsure whether his father's threats should be taken seriously.
Capitol Police officers, meanwhile, painted a damning image of the defendant, repeatedly identifying him as leading a screaming mob up an outside Capitol stairway.
"It was a really bad situation," Sgt. Matthew Flood told jurors, describing his arrival on a landing area as the crowd advanced. He said "hundreds" of rioters had already breached the security perimeter when he and other officers arrived.
Almost immediately, Flood said that a fellow officer identified Reffitt, at the front of the pack, waving rioters forward.
"The person in the blue jacket was the problem," Flood said, referring to his colleague's description of Reffitt, also outfitted in a bullet-proof vest and tactical helmet, who continued to move forward even after officers launched non-lethal projectiles at the defendant.
"He was in front; he was leading them up the stairs," Flood said.
Fearing for the safety of lawmakers, Flood said he eventually left the front lines to evacuate members of Congress.
Capitol Police Sgt. Adam DesCamp, who joined Flood and another officer, said Reffitt repeatedly ignored commands to stop.
"Don't be a traitor, let us in," Reffitt called out at one point, DesCamp testified Monday. "You can't stop us all."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Texas man found guilty on five federal charges in first Jan. 6 trial
Ex-Proud Boys Leader Enrique Tarrio Arrested in Miami in Connection With Capitol Riot
Tarrio, 38, was indicted on conspiracy and other charges in the Capitol breach, U.S. Department of Justice officials said
The former leader of the right-wing Proud Boys was arrested in Miami Tuesday morning in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
The attorney for Enrique Tarrio confirmed he was taken into custody at a home on Northwest 2nd Street where the FBI and other law enforcement were conducting a raid.
Tarrio, 38, was indicted on one count of each conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, as well as two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property in the Capitol breach, U.S. Department of Justice officials said.
Tarrio appeared in federal court in Miami Tuesday, where he was appointed a public defender after his attorney had a conflict of interest.
He's due back in court Friday when a judge will determine whether he'll be given a bond.
Tarrio wasn't at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Police had arrested him in Washington two days before the riot and charged him with vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church during a protest in December 2020.
The day before the Capitol was attacked, a judge ordered Tarrio to stay out of Washington. He later served a five-month sentence in that case.
The indictment claims Tarrio led the advance planning and remained in contact with other members of the Proud Boys during their breach of the Capitol.
The indictment also alleges that Tarrio claimed credit for what had happened on social media and in an encrypted chat room during and after the attack.
After his release from jail earlier this year, Tarrio told NBC 6 that if he hadn’t been arrested, he would have been at the Capitol that day and that he would have stopped the Proud Boys from participating in any violence.
“I don’t agree with or condone what happened at the Capitol when it comes to the violence,” Tarrio said. “We went to Washington D.C. with the intent of sitting there and supporting President Trump and then drink beer after, and obviously, I wasn’t there and I can’t tell you what was in their heads, but I think the mob mentality just took over.”
The new riot-related charges are among the most serious filed so far, but they aren’t the first of their kind. Eleven members or associates of the anti-government Oath Keepers militia group, including its founder and leader Stewart Rhodes, were charged on Jan. 12 with seditious conspiracy in the Capitol attack.
More than three dozen people charged in the Capitol siege have been identified by federal authorities as Proud Boys leaders, members or associates.
A New York man pleaded guilty in December to storming the U.S. Capitol with fellow Proud Boys members. Matthew Greene was the first Proud Boys member to publicly plead guilty to conspiring with other members to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote. Greene agreed to cooperate with authorities.
On the morning of Jan. 6, Proud Boys members met at the Washington Monument and marched to the Capitol before then-President Donald Trump finished speaking to thousands of supporters near the White House.
Just before Congress convened a joint session to certify the election results, a group of Proud Boys followed a crowd of people who breached barriers at a pedestrian entrance to the Capitol grounds, an indictment says. Several Proud Boys also entered the Capitol building itself after the mob smashed windows and forced open doors.
Prosecutors have said the Proud Boys arranged for members to communicate using specific frequencies on Baofeng radios. The Chinese-made devices can be programmed for use on hundreds of frequencies, making them difficult for outsiders to eavesdrop.
In December, a federal judge refused to dismiss an earlier indictment charging four alleged leaders of the far-right Proud Boys with conspiracy. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected defense attorneys’ arguments that the four men — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Charles Donohoe — were charged with conduct that is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.
Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Donohoe remain jailed while awaiting a trial scheduled for May.
Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter president and member of the group’s national “Elders Council.” Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, is a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Rehl was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia. Donohoe, of Kernersville, North Carolina, also served as president of his local chapter, according to the indictment.
Proud Boys members describe the group as a politically incorrect men’s club for “Western chauvinists.” Its members frequently have brawled with antifascist activists at rallies and protests. Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, who founded the Proud Boys in 2016, sued the Southern Poverty Law Center for labeling it as a hate group.
It's astonishing how stupid some people can be. She knows who she is and who her husband is, and how his job is supposed to be as non-politically leaning as possible.
Why can't she just support her side via shady backroom deals that nobody hears about like the rest of our ruling elite?
Bro, I think we’ve entered an era where people just can’t help themselves. It might have something to do with how they witness other people getting away with proverbial murder.
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama on Wednesday said Donald Trump had asked him to “rescind” the 2020 presidential election, “remove” President Joe Biden from his office, “immediately put” Trump back in the White House and hold a new special presidential election.
Brooks said in a statement that he had drawn Trump’s “ire” by telling the former president that his plan was not legal.
The congressman later told NBC News that Trump proposed the series of events to restore him to the presidency after Sept. 1, more than seven months after Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021.
Trump earlier Wednesday said he was withdrawing an endorsement of Brooks in May’s GOP primary for one of Alabama’s U.S. Senate seats.
Trump cited Brooks’ call for Republicans to move on from the 2020 presidential election and to focus on winning races this year and in 2024.
Brooks made that suggestion at a Trump rally seven months ago. Trump since November 2020 has falsely claimed that he actually defeated Biden, but was swindled out of a second term in the White House by widespread ballot fraud in several swing states.
“I repeat what has prompted President Trump’s ire,” Brooks said in his prepared statement later Wednesday responding to Trump’s decision to pull his endorsement.
It's astonishing how stupid some people can be. She knows who she is and who her husband is, and how his job is supposed to be as non-politically leaning as possible.
Why can't she just support her side via shady backroom deals that nobody hears about like the rest of our ruling elite?
This is a great read for anyone that still reads in-depth articles.
I had read an article recently about Ginni and the potential issues her activism might raise. If I get a chance I need to circle back and read your link fully. I started but it's a long, long piece
But in this day and age with people distracted by the bright shiny object - with the disinformation - the entire RIGHT will deflect, deny, ignore, lie.
Of course the problem is - having listened to the whole thing ... there is a lot of very disturbing information and factually stuff that should be cause for alarm and monitoring ... but then there is a ton of over the top hyperbole / rhetoric / left wing talking points. It undermines what's important.
And then you have Mitch voting against Jackson pffft. What a crock.
Honestly, because of her actions, it casts a doubt on Justice Thomas' ability to be fair and impartial in matters regarding anything to do with Trump, Jan 6, the insurrection or for that matter anything to do with any matter dealing with the election.
I'm not saying he can't to be fair, I'm saying it's very possible he could NOT be impartial. That should be enough to cause him to recuse himself. I don't think a claim of "High Tech Lynching" will work this time.
Still kinda wondering why the Ginni Thomas doesn't keep her opinions to herself...
Clarence Thomas' dissenting vote concerning the release of information to the Jan 6 committee ... just so happens that these very texts from Ginny Thomas to Mark Meadows were included in that information which was released to the committee. It does appear that Clarence might be involved in an attempted 'coverup'.
Also, according to the reporters who broke the story about the texts...they have more information that will be released in the near future.
I'm not going to reach to the conclusion that Clarence Thomas was involved in some kind of cover up. At least not at this juncture. Yet at the very same time it's hard for me to fathom how in a majority of conservatives on the SCOTUS he was the only vote to try and help Trump keep all of those documents concealed. When you combine his wife's texts with that decision it's certainly at the very least quite coincidental. It could also be that he was aware of his wife's messages and didn't want that exposed. I mean that would still be considered a cover up I suppose but not all that sinister of a motive.
Judge finds Trump 'more likely than not' committed felony obstruction in effort to overturn election The judge said Trump's former lawyer John Eastman must turn over documents.
ByKatherine Faulders March 28, 2022, 4:08 PM • 3 min read
A federal judge has found that former President Trump "more likely than not" committed...Read More Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images, FILE A federal judge has found that former President Donald Trump "more likely than not" committed felony obstruction in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
U.S District Judge David Carter said in the ruling that Trump's former lawyer John Eastman must turn over most documents he is withholding from the Jan. 6 House committee investigating the attack on the U.S Capitol.
"Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021," Carter wrote.
The judge, who reviewed Eastman's documents, ordered Eastman to turn over all but ten that the court found privileged.
MORE: Former Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 committee In response, Eastman's legal team said in a statement Monday afternoon that Eastman "intends to comply with the court's order" and will turn over the requested documents.
In his ruling, Judge Carter, a Clinton appointee, provided a summary of several documents Eastman has sought to block.
"The eleventh document is a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written for President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani," Carter wrote. "The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump's team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action."
PHOTO: In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the "Stop The Steal" Rally in Washington, D.C. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images, FILE Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images, FILE In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks at the "Stop The Steal" R...Read More "The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman's later memos closely track its analysis and proposal," Carter wrote.
"The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021," wrote the judge. "Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed."
They don't care. They have no shame. When you are fighting communism and fighting for the very soul of the country, the constitution and the laws of the land do not matter
Trump phone logs turned over to House show 7-hour gap on Jan. 6
CBSNews Tue, March 29, 2022, 7:00 AM
Internal White House records from the day of the attack on the U.S. Capitol that were turned over to the House select committee show a gap in President Donald Trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being violently assaulted, according to documents obtained by CBS News' chief election & campaign correspondent Robert Costa and The Washington Post's associate editor Bob Woodward. The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes — from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. — on Jan. 6, 2021 means there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety.
The 11 pages of records — which consist of the president's official daily diary and the White House switchboard call log — were turned over by the National Archives earlier this year to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.
The records show that Trump was active on the phone for part of the day, documenting conversations that he had with at least eight people in the morning and 11 people that evening. The gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack.
The House panel is now investigating whether Trump communicated that day through backchannels, phones of aides or personal disposable phones, known as "burner phones," according to two people with knowledge of the probe, who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. The committee is also scrutinizing whether it received the full log from that day. The records show that former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon — who said on his Jan. 5 podcast that "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow" — spoke with Trump twice on Jan. 6.
A spokesman for the committee declined to comment. In a statement Monday night, Trump said, "I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term." A Trump spokesperson said that Trump had nothing to do with the records and had assumed any and all of his phone calls were recorded and preserved. For more, read The Washington Post story co-written by Costa and Woodward.
Bolton says he recalls Trump using the term "burner phones"
White House records obtained by CBS News and The Washington Post show Trump did not use his phone for over seven hours on January 6, 2021 during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and the House select committee investigating the attack is looking into whether he used a "burner phone," or a personal disposable phone whose contacts could not be traced.
In response, the former president said he had never heard of the phrase "burner phone."
"I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term," Trump said.
But Bolton said he and Trump have spoken about how people have used "burner phones" to avoid having their calls scrutinized.
That is no way to talk about our next President...
Trump would beat Biden by six points and Kamala by 11 if the election were held today
Donald Trump would beat both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in respective hypothetical match-ups if the 2024 election were held today, a new poll reported on Tuesday suggests.
The Republican former president leads Biden by a six-point margin in the latest Harvard CAPS-Harris survey exclusively obtained by The Hill
You'd think that Republicans would have learned a thing or two about Missing info.... How did that work out for Nixon...
It worked for hillary.
Ahhh that's funny.
A "But Hilary" comment. Hilary has more Cohones than Trump has in 1000 life times. I sort of despise Hilary and what she became. But man, she faced the music, didn't plead the 5th. Trump couldn't ever do that - he's just a grease ball snake oil salesman out to rob the dumbest of the dumb.
It is no exaggeration to say that the history of the United States has never seen an account of a president’s conduct quite so devastating as the first nine pages of Judge David Carter’s opinion of March 28 in Eastman v. Thompson. The opinion, legally speaking, concerns the Jan. 6 committee’s efforts to secure emails from John Eastman, the law professor who provided President Trump with advice aimed at overturning the 2020 election. But that is not why it will be remembered.
Certainly Watergate produced no document about Richard Nixon comparable to it in its combination of brevity, spare factual simplicity, and total evisceration of its subject’s honor and conduct. Nor did Teapot Dome or the Whiskey Ring scandals produce such material concerning Warren Harding or Ulysses S. Grant. Nothing that Lawrence Walsh had to say about Ronald Reagan or that Kenneth Starr wrote about Bill Clinton, both after years of investigation and exposition at great length, remotely approaches it in power.
Yet at the risk infuriating readers, I want to point out a paradox about the opinion: Despite the power of its narrative, despite its correct statement that Trump likely violated criminal laws, and despite its laying out the contours of those violations clearly and without apparent ambiguity, the opinion will actually not necessitate a Justice Department criminal investigation of the former president.
Before explaining this point, I want to take a moment to appreciate a genuinely historic piece of judicial writing. The opinion’s first section—entitled “A. Facts”—begins on page three of Judge Carter’s opinion and runs through the middle of page 12. In a footnote attached to the word “Facts” in the subhead leading the section, Carter notes in a fashion characteristic of the section’s understatement, “In this discussion, the Court relies solely on facts provided by Dr. Eastman and the Select Committee in their briefing and attached exhibits.”
He is not exaggerating. The section contains no judgments, no legal interpretations, no conclusions. It contains virtually no rhetoric at all. What’s more, the section does not contain a whole lot of new facts. The story of Eastman and Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the relationship between that effort and Trump’s concurrent plot to decapitate the Justice Department, and ultimately to the insurrectionary activity of Jan. 6, 2021, has dribbled out bit by bit over months already. And to the extent the current litigation has revealed new material, that mostly emerged in the committee’s briefing and the accompanying exhibits a few weeks ago.
What makes Judge Carter’s account so powerful is that it is linked tightly to record evidence, that it tells the story in an end-to-end fashion crisply and efficiently, and that it thus assembles the evidence into a coherent account of the big picture. I cannot do Carter’s account justice; please do read it. For present purposes, let me just say that it leaves the fair-minded reader in no doubt that the events that took place between Joe Biden’s defeat of Trump at the polls and congressional certification of Biden’s victory on Jan. 6 were an all-out effort by the lame duck president to seize and retain power in unapologetic defiance of the law using extra-constitutional means—up to and including violence directed against a coordinate branch of government.
Such a story requires no denunciation from the judge. His account of it alone constitutes its own denunciation, at least it should to decent citizens of a functioning democracy.
Judge Carter’s opinion is attracting attention less because of its opening section than because of its final one, in which he finds that Trump likely committed crimes and that Eastman’s attorney work product, in one instance, is thus not privileged under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney work product doctrine.
On its own terms, the opinion seems uncomplicatedly correct on this point. The question before Judge Carter is whether it is more likely than not that Eastman’s legal services were being used in furtherance of a crime. The standard of proof here is relatively low—the preponderance of the evidence—and the judge did not have before him the many arguments that would complicate, say, an attempt actually to prosecute Trump or Eastman for these crimes.
In this context, the judge certainly appears to be correct that Trump was using Eastman’s legal services in conduct that, as a prima facie matter, violates both 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 371, the former of which forbids the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and the latter of which criminalizes conspiring to defraud the United States. In at least one important respect, Carter goes significantly beyond holding that the evidence meets what he takes to be the relevant legal threshold in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He writes specifically that the evidence before him “exceed[s]” even the showing necessary to find that Trump acted corruptly, and he cites voluminous evidence that the former president and Eastman both knew full well that Eastman’s legal arguments were nonsense and that his proposed course of action was unlawful. To have a judge write this, all tied rigorously to specific pieces of evidence, about a former president’s mental state and conscious awareness of criminality is no small matter.
In any event, it is difficult to disagree with Judge Carter that “[b]ased on the evidence ... it is more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” And it is just as difficult to disagree with him that “it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session[.]”
So I know what you’re thinking: If the opinion is devastating and if it correctly concludes that the president probably committed crimes, doesn’t that require a criminal investigation on the part of the Justice Department?
The answer to that question is complicated in a fashion I am sure will annoy many readers. First, an investigation may already be open. Second, Judge Carter’s opinion could well trigger one if one does not already exist—both of Trump and particularly of Eastman—by changing the Justice Department’s discretionary judgment about whether an investigation is wise at this time. After all, a federal judge saying that crimes have probably been committed in a high-profile matter doesn’t happen every day. That said, third, for reasons I will explain, the decision doesn’t require anything of the Justice Department. If the department has decided for legal reasons that a prosecution of Trump in this matter could not happen—and there are reasons to worry it may have done so, in my view—this opinion will not force it to shift gears.
An important preliminary matter of background: The specific context of Judge Carter’s opinion matters a great deal. The point of this opinion was not to determine whether the former president committed crimes but whether privilege protects certain documents against production to the committee. As such, the judge was using a different standard of evidence and he was not focusing on certain questions the Justice Department will certainly consider. Carter himself acknowledges this point clearly in the final paragraph of his opinion, the one place in the entire opinion where his rhetoric crosses the line into needless rhetorical grandstanding:
More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit. At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of “legal theories” gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself. (emphasis added)
Amidst the judge’s apparent call for prosecution, in other words, is a frank acknowledgement that his task is different from the department’s.
Remember also that the facts on the basis of which Judge Carter ruled on Monday have been available to the Justice Department for some time, and the department has long been capable of doing the same legal analysis as Carter did on its own—as, indeed, the committee itself has done and outside analysts have done as well. So the first possibility, as a group of Lawfare writers acknowledged (myself included) back when the committee filed its brief in this case, is that the Justice Department already has opened a case based on these facts. It might be the case, we wrote then:
that the Justice Department or FBI is already quietly investigating these charges (or similar ones) and never needed any prodding from anyone.
If that’s the case, then the department is certainly showing extraordinary—even admirable—stealth. At a minimum, we can say with confidence that an investigation, if it has been opened, has not taken the kind of overt investigative steps that make news. The press is aware of no witnesses or documents that have been subpoenaed nor of any search warrants that have been executed. If such an investigation exists, it remains at a relatively preliminary stage.
A related possibility is that there is no specific investigation of this matter in isolation, just the larger investigation of possible crimes committed in connection with Jan. 6, of which this fact pattern presents one among many. Investigations, after all, tend to center around crimes, not people, with the individuals and suspects coming into and going out of investigative scope at different times. In other words, it is possible that as part of the investigation of Jan. 6, the department is considering whether obstruction and conspiracy were committed by Eastman, Trump and others.
What is completely clear, however, is that if the Justice Department has not opened a criminal investigation of Trump and Eastman or contemplated obstruction or conspiracy by them in the context of the larger Jan. 6 investigation, it is not because the evidence on which Judge Carter ruled Monday has been unavailable to the FBI and prosecutors.
In the Lawfare discussion of the committee’s brief early this month, we posited that the likely explanation was discretionary, if the Justice Department were indeed not active on the matter. Perhaps the department is deferring to the committee’s investigation, letting the committee develop the facts on this matter of the president while the department focuses on seditious conspiracy cases against the Oath Keepers, for example.
We also described “[a]nother possibility” that we thought “more remote”: “that the department has studied the legal argument the committee is making and has, for some reason, concluded as a matter of law that it would or could never bring a such a case—and thus that it should not conduct a criminal investigation of a former president based on this theory.”
In reflecting on the matter since helping to write that piece, I have come to think that the legal factors may actually predominate over the discretionary ones. That is to say, if there is no ongoing Justice Department activity with respect to Trump’s conduct under either § 1512(c)(2) or § 371, that may well be because the Justice Department’s own interpretation of the law of the application of criminal statutes to the president makes prosecuting the president difficult—or because the department simply hasn’t made a final decision yet on how the legal principles intersect. If this is correct, Judge Carter’s opinion will likely change nothing.
To understand this point, let’s go back to the time when the Mueller report came out and much of American legal thought (myself certainly included) concluded that the report contained unambiguous evidence of obstruction of justice on Trump’s part.
Writing on Lawfare at the time in this site’s proudest tradition of questioning accepted wisdom when doing so will enrage the most people, Jack Goldsmith raised an important problem:
In a much-cited 1995 opinion by Walter Dellinger, OLC described the presidential clear statement rule as follows: “[G]eneral statutes must be read as not applying to the President if they do not expressly apply where application would arguably limit the President's constitutional role.” Please read this sentence carefully. It says that general statutes—i.e., ones like the obstruction statutes that do not specifically regulate the president—“must” (not may) be read as “not applying to the president” if they do not “expressly” apply, where (i.e., if) application of the statute would “arguably” (not definitely, arguably) “limit” the president’s constitutional role. Dellinger also says: “[S]tatutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to the President if such application would involve a possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives” (emphasis added). Other OLC opinions contain similarly broad formulations of the clear statement rule.
OLC (or, in one case, the deputy attorney general) has relied on the clear statement rule in at least the four opinions listed below in the Appendix to this piece, though there are probably more. (OLC’s 1996 opus on separation of powers also expressed the rule in broad terms.) In every one of these four opinions, the Justice Department applied a version of the clear statement rule to conclude that a generally worded statute did not apply to the president.
Now let’s leave aside for a moment the question of whether Goldsmith was right that Mueller botched his analysis of the clear statement rule and thus misinterpreted the obstruction statutes. (Goldsmith and I debated the matter at the time, also in the highest tradition of this site, and suffice it to say that I very much hope I prevailed and very much fear I did not.) That question is immaterial to the matter at hand today.
And let’s leave aside as well the question of whether OLC’s interpretation of the clear statement rule has merit—on which matter I am certain I disagree with the executive branch’s historical position, which seems to me extravagant. That question is also immaterial to the matter at hand today.
For present purposes, the only thing that matters is that OLC, in fact, has historically taken this position. And at least until its opinions on the subject are overturned either by OLC itself or by the attorney general or the president, OLC opinions bind the executive branch—though they do not bind Judge Carter.
In other words, while the question before Judge Carter was whether it is more likely than not that Trump violated these two statutes as best interpreted, the question before the Justice Department (unless Attorney General Merrick Garland is willing to reopen decades of OLC precedent) is whether Trump may have violated either of them given that both “must be read as not applying to the President if they do not expressly apply where application would arguably limit the President's constitutional role.” While this additional interpretive baggage does not constrain Judge Carter, the Supreme Court decisions that lie beneath it do. Without the benefit of briefing on those decisions that, in the Justice Department’s view, give rise to the clear statement rule, Judge Carter is working with the statutes in a somewhat simpler form than the Justice Department confronts them.
Note that § 1512(c) is the same obstruction statute that Mueller was dealing with, and that Goldsmith and I were arguing about, and that § 371 no more by its terms applies to presidential conduct than the obstruction statute does.
Note also that it’s certainly possible to distinguish the clear statement rule analysis in this instance from its application to obstruction cases in the Mueller report, so the need to consider it here does not fully answer the question of whether and to what degree it would impede a prosecution under either of these laws. It’s possible, after all, to argue that it’s one thing to apply the obstruction statute where, as in the firing of the FBI director or the attempt to fire the special counsel, you’re contemplating the president’s indictment based on a corrupt exercise of a core and exclusive presidential power—and quite a different matter to preclude application of federal criminal law to a blatant attempt to subvert an election, an activity that does not in any way further the president’s constitutional role. The president, after all, has no role in certifying the election under the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act—the matter in which Eastman was encouraging Trump to interfere.
On the other hand, proponents of executive power might argue, presidents put pressure on vice presidents to carry their water all the time. Surely, criminalizing such an action would “arguably limit the President’s constitutional role.”
Again, my point here is not that this view of the law is correct. My point is only that the Justice Department accepts some version of the clear statement rule, which thus creates a hurdle for the department in contemplating a prosecution of Trump based on the shameful fact pattern that Judge Carter’s opinion lays out. It’s a hurdle that Carter himself did not confront.
To make matters more complicated, the boundaries of the clear statement rule are genuinely contested. There is wide disagreement over both when the rule should be applied and, when applied, what conduct fits within its scope. To know how it might be affecting a possible investigation of Trump’s conduct around Jan. 6, we would have to understand both whether the department thinks the rule applies here at all, what scope it believes the rule to have if it does apply, and how it applies that scope to the conduct at issue.
Yet we actually don’t know how far the Justice Department has gone on the question of the clear statement rule. The reason is that there was almost certainly OLC work product in the context of Attorney General William Barr’s consideration of § 1512(c)(2) when Barr was responding to the Mueller report. But we don’t know how far OLC went in this work in limiting that statute’s application to presidential behavior or how its opinions were reasoned. We also don’t know whether any of those opinions may have been withdrawn by the new administration, some of whose lawyers are known to be hostile to an expansive reading of the rule.
So if you think I’m being eccentric and finicky in thinking that this is an issue on which Justice Department lawyers will spend a lot of time before indicting a former president, consider how Mueller himself handled the issue. As Goldsmith pointed out in our exchange at the time:
One problem with these criticisms of the clear statement rule for purposes of assessing the Mueller report’s legal analysis is that the Mueller report disagrees with them. The [Mueller Report] asserts without qualification that the clear statement rule, which it described as a “requirement,” applies to the obstruction statutes. It maintains without qualification that “the Supreme Court has applied that clear-statement rule in several cases.” It also notes that the Department of Justice “has relied on this clear-statement principle to interpret certain statutes as not applying to the President at all, similar to the approach taken in Franklin.” The report doesn’t hem and haw about the legitimacy of the clear statement rule. It accepts the rule in the broad formulation set out by OLC chief Walter Dellinger in the 1995 OLC memo. And then it purports to apply the rule in a way that I criticize, and that none of the critics defend.
If this question caused Mueller to write a lengthy legal analysis before proceeding to not conclude that Trump committed a prosecutable crime, expect Garland to spend some quality time with the question before concluding that Trump did.
To be sure, a Supreme Court ruling contrary to OLC’s view of the clear statement rule would force OLC to rethink its opinions, and an appeals court decision might well prompt reconsideration. But a district court opinion that does not confront the issue of the clear statement rule at all will not change the Justice Department’s view. And this matter is not likely to generate appellate review, since Eastman has decided not to appeal the decision. So if the Justice Department does not already have an investigation open on this matter, Judge Carter’s opinion will not force it to open one—though the moral suasion of the story itself may well affect the department’s discretionary decisions.
All of which, in my view, has a number of important implications:
First and easiest, the discussion above applies to Donald Trump only. It does not apply to John Eastman. To the extent the Justice Department does not have an open investigation related to Eastman’s conduct in this area, that seems like an indefensibly cautious exercise of discretion. A federal judge has now identified Eastman’s likely criminal activity in what amounts to a presidentially led insurrection—and has done so very publicly in a credibly detailed, significant opinion. It is unfathomable to me that the Justice Department would not now consider action of its own.
With respect to Trump, the department here is in a genuinely tough spot. A lot of commentators will try to make it sound easy. It isn’t easy. Perhaps the most important thing the Justice Department could do is release any OLC opinions from the Mueller report period that might exist bearing on how broadly it has interpreted the clear statement rule with respect to these statutes. More generally, an indication that the department is considering the Eastman case would go a long way to making clear to the public that it is at least thinking about the criminal implications of Trump’s conduct in this period.
In the long run, the most important public policy implications are for Congress. After writing his critique of the Mueller obstruction memo, Goldsmith went on, writing with Bob Bauer in the book After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, to urge Congress to fix this problem by applying these statutes clearly to presidential conduct. “It is an intolerable state of affairs for the president, Congress, and the American people not to have a clearer sense of whether and under what conditions the president can obstruct justice,” they write. Their admonition rings even truer today than it did when Bauer and Goldsmith wrote it. If not for Trump, then for future presidents of comparably low character, the problem that may be holding up the Justice Department really needs to be fixed.
The Jan. 6 committee has made some important noises about clarifying that Trump’s conduct was illegal. This is the low-hanging fruit in that effort. It shouldn’t continue to escape Congress’s attention.
Because when a federal judge writes the most devastating account of a president in American history, the public really should be able to expect criminal charges.
Bro- do you listen to the Lawfare podcast? Ben Wittes and crew do a fantastic job. Just like the blogs, they dig in deeeeep. Long-format interviews, in-depth panel discussions- if you leave their podcasts stupid an uninformed, it's your fault- not their.
Love that joint. Got a subscript, so I never miss an episode. If you haven't been on this- here's your friendly tip.
You'd think that Republicans would have learned a thing or two about Missing info.... How did that work out for Nixon...
It worked for hillary.
Hillary had the courage to stand up and take the heat and at the end of the day, she wasn't convicted and wasn't "locked up" like the fools who followed Trump wanted.... She sat in front of a congressional committee and answered every question asked of her.. She didn't plea the 5th once... NOT ONCE.
Comparing these two situations has little to no merit...
It's funny. Hillary has been investigated over and over again. even Trump demanded she be investigated again and she was. She testified for several hours. They never came up with a single thing. But then they've never been big on investigations. Even 66 court cases proving there was no election fraud hasn't convinced the majority of republicans. So despite every Hillary investigations coming up with nothing, they can't get her out of their heads.
It takes time for scum to rise to the top of a pond.
Having the Media collude with the DNC to cover up the Hunter Biden Emails and Laptop with 10 percent for the Big Guy, all leading up to the election, comes to mind.
Having the corrupt FBI at the time interviewing Hillary is of course a joke today. Perhaps she used their hammer as she destroyed evidence.
It takes time for scum to rise to the top of a pond.
Having the Media collude with the DNC to cover up the Hunter Biden Emails and Laptop with 10 percent for the Big Guy, all leading up to the election, comes to mind.
No it doesn't. In your own examples, we knew about those right away. Whether we do anything about it is another discussion altogether. Congress, in particular, is an organization that has gotten to the point that any sort of accountability would be dangerous to the way they do business.
It takes time for scum to rise to the top of a pond.
Having the Media collude with the DNC to cover up the Hunter Biden Emails and Laptop with 10 percent for the Big Guy, all leading up to the election, comes to mind.
No it doesn't. In your own examples, we knew about those right away. Whether we do anything about it is another discussion altogether. Congress, in particular, is an organization that has gotten to the point that any sort of accountability would be dangerous to the way they do business.
Yes it does.
We may have heard about those things right away but they were quickly dismissed by Democrats and Media as Russian disinformation.
It's funny. Hillary has been investigated over and over again. even Trump demanded she be investigated again and she was. She testified for several hours. They never came up with a single thing. But then they've never been big on investigations. Even 66 court cases proving there was no election fraud hasn't convinced the majority of republicans. So despite every Hillary investigations coming up with nothing, they can't get her out of their heads.
Will, she's been Teflon because she's a criminal mastermind. Hours on the hot seat, just as cool as the other side of the pillow. Or, they're just the Keystone Kops of investigative hearings.
It takes time for scum to rise to the top of a pond.
Yes it does. And the scum of Trump is still rising.
Quote
Having the Media collude with the DNC to cover up the Hunter Biden Emails and Laptop with 10 percent for the Big Guy, all leading up to the election, comes to mind.
There is no real evidence that "10% went to the big guy". Nor that the media colluded with the DNC. You're simply clutching onto another crazy conspiracy theory.
Quote
Having the corrupt FBI at the time interviewing Hillary is of course a joke today.
It wasn't the FBI that was questioning her at the hearing. It was a senate select committee which included Republicans Trey Gowdy, Susan Brooks, Jim Jordan, Mike Pompeo, Martha Roby, Peter Roskam and Lynn Westmoreland. Or are you referring to the investigation after Trump took office when Comey had been fired and Trump had his and picked appointee in charge of the FBI?
Quote
Wonder what other scum will be rising with time.
I suggest you keep an eye on the Jan. 6th committee to find out.
Bro- do you listen to the Lawfare podcast? Ben Wittes and crew do a fantastic job. Just like the blogs, they dig in deeeeep. Long-format interviews, in-depth panel discussions- if you leave their podcasts stupid an uninformed, it's your fault- not their.
Love that joint. Got a subscript, so I never miss an episode. If you haven't been on this- here's your friendly tip.
Yes, I think I started reading that blog after one of your posts
“10% went to the big guy!” Is just another in a long list of phrases to galvanize people who don’t utilize critical thought. I’ve said it before, but, my take is that, if he’s done something stupid, then book him. I’ll keep that in mind if Hunter Biden ever runs for president.
I also am a big proponent of an anti-nepotism rule that says non-spousal family members are barred from having roles in the administration…
If only you understood that all you and your kind have done is to label actual Republicans who represent what you used to claim were your values as RINO's due to a habitual liar who tried to overthrow our election. All of the values you claimed you stood for no longer exist. It's people such as yourself who became the sell outs, not them.
We continue cleaning our house and then we will be cleaning yours come November.
I like it when you wear your French maid's outfit. The feather duster is always a nice touch. I'll pay extra if you 'do my windows.' And next week, it's "Wall Art Day." That means the short step ladder, the duster, and a whollotta reaching & stretching...
You do realize that it was required for people to have registered when they entered Afghanistan in case something like this happened so they could be contacted. When they refused to do that there was no way of knowing who all was there, where they were or how to contact them. Americans were told to leave Afghanistan and those still there did not register their contact information and refused to leave when told to do so.
And just think, before Trump you claimed to be the party of personal responsibility. Now you've joined the crowd that wants to blame someone else when people do the wrong thing. So much for the values you used to claim you held.
So no response to the accurate comments I made. Biden has made some mistakes. All presidents make mistakes. Then some people blame them for mistakes they didn't make. Do you have a mirror handy?
Our oil and gas companies have thousands if current leases they are not drilling on. If they want even more public land, drill on the leases you already hold.
Biden outpaces Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands
Do you read your linked articles, or just the headlines?
"There’s a good reason many stockpiled leases remain undeveloped: there may be no oil and gas to be found there, or companies discover that it’s not economically feasible to drill, said Angela Franklin, a partner at Holland and Hart LLP in Salt Lake City who represents industry clients.
“We don’t get to pick and choose where the oil is located,” she said, adding that there’s a “tremendous amount of acres that is not developed and may never be developed” because companies haven’t found oil or gas. It’s also possible companies have leases on too little land in one place to justify drilling there, she said. "
And "On Wednesday more than 360 climate, conservation, Indigenous, environmental justice and community groups petitioned the Biden administration to use its executive authority to phase out oil and gas production on public lands and oceans." (this is from 2021, January)
And, Jan 27,2022, washington post: "This month, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management indicated it would reverse the Trump administration’s decision to expand oil and gas production on the largest swath of federal land, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska — but would allow drilling on half of the reserve."
Also, from the Post: Last fall, Biden officials put 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico up for auction in the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in U.S. history. While it sold only a fraction of that amount — about 1.7 million acres — it netted nearly $192 million and ranked as the most profitable offshore auction since March 2019."
Follow the money, right? Lease ground that may or may not have oil or gas, make your profit (gov't.). Threaten to stop the leases due to environmental situations, then sit back and blame the companies for not drilling for what may or may not be there, and what, if oil or gas IS there, might be shut down later anyway.
Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican representing Michigan since 1986, announced his retirement on the House floor Tuesday morning.
Upton is among the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment.
Republican Reps. Adam Kinzinger, John Katko and Anthony Gonzalez also voted to impeach Trump and have previously said they are retiring.
Seems RINO season has been very successful so far.
We continue cleaning our house and then we will be cleaning yours come November.
I generally don't respond to you because most of what you post is trash. Being Pro Trump doesn't make you a true Republican. It doesn't make you a conservative either. It only means that you put a man above everything else. A man who is deeply flawed at that.
Now I support a lot of the policies Trump did. However, I couldn't vote for him because of the person he is. I'm sure that makes me a Rino. I will wear that badge with honor.
Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican representing Michigan since 1986, announced his retirement on the House floor Tuesday morning.
Upton is among the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment.
Republican Reps. Adam Kinzinger, John Katko and Anthony Gonzalez also voted to impeach Trump and have previously said they are retiring.
Seems RINO season has been very successful so far.
We continue cleaning our house and then we will be cleaning yours come November.
I generally don't respond to you because most of what you post is trash. Being Pro Trump doesn't make you a true Republican. It doesn't make you a conservative either. It only means that you put a man above everything else. A man who is deeply flawed at that.
Now I support a lot of the policies Trump did. However, I couldn't vote for him because of the person he is. I'm sure that makes me a Rino. I will wear that badge with honor.
Well voting them out is a far better thing than abandoning them in Afghanistan.
SUCH A TROLL. This entire thread just proves why we can not live with the Trumpians. We must drive the racists, fascists, and insurrectionists back into their holes or lock them up in nut houses.
Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican representing Michigan since 1986, announced his retirement on the House floor Tuesday morning.
Upton is among the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment.
Republican Reps. Adam Kinzinger, John Katko and Anthony Gonzalez also voted to impeach Trump and have previously said they are retiring.
Seems RINO season has been very successful so far.
We continue cleaning our house and then we will be cleaning yours come November.
I generally don't respond to you because most of what you post is trash. Being Pro Trump doesn't make you a true Republican. It doesn't make you a conservative either. It only means that you put a man above everything else. A man who is deeply flawed at that.
Now I support a lot of the policies Trump did. However, I couldn't vote for him because of the person he is. I'm sure that makes me a Rino. I will wear that badge with honor.
So why did you choose Biden over Trump?
Would you have voted to impeach Trump?
I voted Biden over Trump because Trump is a sad human being as well as possibly a crook. Biden looks to be crooked as well so I will vote for someone else and will continue the cycle until I find someone who isn't.
Would I have voted to impeach? I really don't know. Going by his speech he gave, no. He clearly stated to peacefully protest. Now I don't know what other evidence they had at the time. The thing is there is so much out there now that I have no idea what is true and what is not. I'm not sure exactly what hard evidence there is implicating him. When it comes time I will read up and decide if I thinks he needs to go to jail for his role.
If the likes of Cawthorn, Cruz, McConnell are your Republicans, then you can have them.
They're not.
So you know your question sounds like it came from Pit. The snark is not something I respond to but from what I have read from you I' m assuming you didn't mean it that way.
Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican representing Michigan since 1986, announced his retirement on the House floor Tuesday morning.
Upton is among the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment.
Republican Reps. Adam Kinzinger, John Katko and Anthony Gonzalez also voted to impeach Trump and have previously said they are retiring.
Seems RINO season has been very successful so far.
We continue cleaning our house and then we will be cleaning yours come November.
I generally don't respond to you because most of what you post is trash. Being Pro Trump doesn't make you a true Republican. It doesn't make you a conservative either. It only means that you put a man above everything else. A man who is deeply flawed at that.
Now I support a lot of the policies Trump did. However, I couldn't vote for him because of the person he is. I'm sure that makes me a Rino. I will wear that badge with honor.
So why did you choose Biden over Trump?
Would you have voted to impeach Trump?
I voted Biden over Trump because Trump is a sad human being as well as possibly a crook. Biden looks to be crooked as well so I will vote for someone else and will continue the cycle until I find someone who isn't.
Would I have voted to impeach? I really don't know. Going by his speech he gave, no. He clearly stated to peacefully protest. Now I don't know what other evidence they had at the time. The thing is there is so much out there now that I have no idea what is true and what is not. I'm not sure exactly what hard evidence there is implicating him. When it comes time I will read up and decide if I thinks he needs to go to jail for his role.
Sounds to me like you are an Independent or Libertarian.
If the likes of Cawthorn, Cruz, McConnell are your Republicans, then you can have them.
They're not.
So you know your question sounds like it came from Pit. The snark is not something I respond to but from what I have read from you I' m assuming you didn't mean it that way.
If the likes of Cawthorn, Cruz, McConnell are your Republicans, then you can have them.
They're not.
So you know your question sounds like it came from Pit. The snark is not something I respond to but from what I have read from you I' m assuming you didn't mean it that way.
I responded to the wrong post. Meant it for who you responded to. My bad.
Sure arch, a lot of things "may be". So you're concluding that giant oil corporations don't do testing of the land to see if it contains oil or not before they acquire leases? Are you saying they choose to lease land that it's not financially sensible to drill? Are you saying they choose to take out leases so small they can't make a profit?
So all of these extremely wealthy oil companies who hire all of these experts and make billions simply have no clue what they're doing? I posted an article that was non bias. It gave both sides of the story. Maybe I expect too much thinking people can figure out the difference between what makes sense and what doesn't.
Do you read your linked articles, or just the headlines?
You must be new here.
Thanks for your fine addition to the topic. I'm not sure if I should take it as a compliment that some of you have now decided that I am the topic or not. But since that's the only thing you had to say it must be so.
A year ago they had 30,000 leases . Now the have 9,000. So they have been developing them at about 2,000 a month. My guess is the ones remaining they consider low probability of success. Not sure why anyone does not want us to increase production. It can only help.
Sure arch, a lot of things "may be". So you're concluding that giant oil corporations don't do testing of the land to see if it contains oil or not before they acquire leases? Are you saying they choose to lease land that it's not financially sensible to drill? Are you saying they choose to take out leases so small they can't make a profit?
So being Republican is pledging loyalty to one man. You really don’t see the danger in that?
Not loyalty to one man but yes, I am a loyal Republican because they represent my position on the issues best. Trump is the Party's leader until replaced.
Just like the Democrats represent you and the others who voted for the mess this Country is now in.
A year ago they had 30,000 leases . Now the have 9,000. So they have been developing them at about 2,000 a month. My guess is the ones remaining they consider low probability of success. Not sure why anyone does not want us to increase production. It can only help.
Why would an oil company take out a lease on a place that has a "low probability of success"?
So when will you be more likely to hit oil. When you drill 10 wells or when you drill 100 wells? A company buys 1000 leases they know some are more likely to produce than others. So they start on the ones with a higher likelihood of producing. I read that companies hit on about 65% of their drilling’s. You do get that it is not an exact science?
Sure arch, a lot of things "may be". So you're concluding that giant oil corporations don't do testing of the land to see if it contains oil or not before they acquire leases? Are you saying they choose to lease land that it's not financially sensible to drill? Are you saying they choose to take out leases so small they can't make a profit?
No, I'm not. Your links, though, do say that.
Of course they do. But you see that's how things work on a message board. If I post an article that only gives you the story from one side it's considered fake news or a liberal slant on things. If I post an article that gives equal time to both it's a "yeah but your article says" response. That makes anything you post up for ridicule or people trying to use it as a gothcya moment.
It seems as though when actually pressed on the subject you know that what you quoted makes no sense. You seem to fully understand that oil companies wouldn't take out leases on land that wouldn't show a profit. That they test for oil before they take out leases and it would make no sense to take out a lease on land that's too small to turn a profit. Since you understand all of that I have no earthly idea why you know better but thinks it presents a point.
When shown something that's balanced, which makes an argument from both sides, one has to come to some conclusion about what adds up and what doesn't. I guess maybe if I only posted articles that were one sided that would be better? Maybe only Huffington Post MSNBC and Think Progress would be a better alternative?
Drill on the 9000 you aren't drilling on now. It seems you think just allowing oil companies to gain control of all the federal land they want without being required to produce oil on it increases production? You do understand that forcing them to drill on leases they already have is an effort to increase oil production, right? And that allowing them to sit on leases and not drill on them is cutting oil production, right?
So being Republican is pledging loyalty to one man. You really don’t see the danger in that?
Not loyalty to one man but yes, I am a loyal Republican because they represent my position on the issues best. Trump is the Party's leader until replaced.
Just like the Democrats represent you and the others who voted for the mess this Country is now in.
But you are loyal to one man. You JUST said that Trump is your leader, which by the way, is really effed up. WE THE PEOPLE are the leaders or at least should be. None of these people are kings. In fact, that’s exactly why our government was formed. If you had picked nearly any one of our founding fathers and told them what you just said, you would be heavily berated.
What you willfully fail to see from being so corrupted and brainwashed by all the grifting is that you don’t need to fall in line with a party, philosophy, group, whatever. Start thinking for yourself and not letting other people “lead you” or think for you.
You’re the one who said Trump was your leader my friend. Have your king.
Also, I bet you have it backwards. Does the Republican Party represent your interests the best, or do you represent their interests - or at least the Trumpian interests - the best?
That’s something that I hang my family up who remain indoctrinated Republicans, such as yourself.
“Who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?”
“McCain and Romney”
“What do you think of them now (when McCain was alive)?”
“Horrible.”
“What about their policies or platforms changed?”
“They’re against Trump.”
You feed into that dynamic, my friend. And that’s scary.
If we all stopped responding to the troll it would go away. You can’t play handball against curtains. Stop giving it the feedback and it’ll disappear like it did after donny took his epic beatdown in November of 2020.
Put it on ignore. Then ignore it. Do not respond to it. Do not feed it. Let it respond to itself. It’ll get board. We’ll get our message board back.
Had him (and a couple others) on ignore for a while now. Makes coming here so much more pleasant., except when you guys respond to him -> especially annoying when you guys quote his posts.
That’s just not my style. Part of me finds some things scary, but part of me finds it fascinating, honestly. I had TL on ignore for a while, but curiosity brought me back.
You’re the one who said Trump was your leader my friend. Have your king.
Also, I bet you have it backwards. Does the Republican Party represent your interests the best, or do you represent their interests - or at least the Trumpian interests - the best?
That’s something that I hang my family up who remain indoctrinated Republicans, such as yourself.
“Who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?”
“McCain and Romney”
“What do you think of them now (when McCain was alive)?”
“Horrible.”
“What about their policies or platforms changed?”
“They’re against Trump.”
You feed into that dynamic, my friend. And that’s scary.
I voted for both McCain and Romney. I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Daddy and Baby Bush. I voted for Trump. Why? Because the Republicans best represent my view on most issues.
I have never, ever voted for a Democrat at any level. Why?
Because Johnson got all my friends killed or messed up in Nam. That was scary. Because Carter had the Country so down on itself due to his poor management. That was scary. Because Clinton was a rapist. That was scary. Because Obama felt it necessary to apologize to the world for America, the greatest Country to ever exist. That was scary. Because Biden is all but brain dead. That is scary.
But that’s the anomaly, like I referred to. The Republicans views of McCain and Romney - let alone Nixon (who wouldn’t even recognize what the party has become) clash with the Republican views of Trump. So, either your views coincidentally changed to reflect the respective candidate, or you let the party determine your views.
You don’t think those very same or very similar criticisms you cited couldn’t be used against the candidates you just said you voted for?
Your views reflect an engrained core value that, when challenged - even rationally - triggers a fight or flight response. That’s not just to isolate you, either. It’s rampant in this forum, amongst everyone, myself included. To me, it’s about how conscious we are of when we get triggered and us enabling ourselves to think that maybe, just maybe things aren’t what we thought they were.
It’s awfully hard to escape that construct because you have various media outlets and political cartoons, like the ones you post, that reinforce the lowest common denominator of our fear and anger to reinforce our preconceived notions and therefore control us into thinking we must be loyal to one person or throw proverbial feces at another, as if we were our less evolved primate cousins.
No…what makes this country great is our ability to be disloyal to a person…disloyal to a party. It’s the ability to say “Yeah I voted for you originally, but I think you acted like a schmuck and did a poor job, so I’m voting you out, because I don’t have to be anybody’s cheerleader.”
Sadly that dynamic has become reversed and I think Swish was right in his assertion that some are just looking to be controlled.
Let me say I do appreciate your not running off to your safe space like Jester and Portland.
Allow me to clarify the fact that in the Primaries I vote for who I think is the best Republican candidate for America. BUT... I will support the winner of said Primary. By the way, I never voted for Trump in a Primary.
Now let me ask you something...
Do you support Abortion as a means of birth control?
Do you support school teachers teaching gender and sexual identity to K thru 3rd graders?
Do you support teaching students it is the color of your skin and not the content of your character that matters most to who you are?
If you support these things then I can understand your support for those who push these agendas. If you do not support these things it is hard for me to understand why you support those people who do.
I initially missed this post since I thought you were replying to OCD but now I assume you meant it for me.
I appreciate you letting me know about your choice in the primaries. That would imply that you had some reservations about Trump, at least compared to one or more other candidates. It seems now though, that you have fervently thrown your lot in with him. To that end, I would just ask why? When you really break him down and objectively look at him and his actions, you really think he deserves the type of support you throw behind him?
To respond to your questions, I might need to draft a novel, but I’ll keep it short, or at least try to.
I think phrasing of your questions are slanted and designed to paint one into a corner, but to your credit, they are based on very sensitive and legitimate issues.
When it comes to abortion - and I really don’t want this thread to devolve - I am generally against abortion, but I do not support the Republican approach for a myriad of reasons. 1) I do not think they are genuine for the most part. I think it’s a wedge issue and many R’s take up the standard because it’s simply against the democrats. Trump himself was also on the record as being “very pro choice” before he took up his campaign and pretty much did what I just said before. 2) There is a complete lack of empathy and a focus on punishment in the Republican stance. It’s reactionary and designed to invoke feelings of rage and hatred in the base. It’s not constructive. Portland in another thread issued a whole litany of cases where someone’s life would essentially be ruined due to pregnancy, and each one of them was valid. Republicans don’t focus on that or try to offer benefits or packages or help or anything else to actually address the problem. They just take the punitive approach because “handouts.” Basically, have your baby but we won’t help take care of it or you. That’s stupid. If it means that much, you have to have common sense about it. 3) I don’t think Republicans have a legitimate plan in place to actually achieve overturning it. It’s been around for 50 years set as stare decisis. Also, something that could be shocking to you - it was for me - is that 5/7 justices who voted in favor of Roe were Republican appointed. 1/2 justices who dissented was a democrat appointed Justice.
I’m not against the gender identity in schools along with the discussion on sexuality. I have a third grader and first grader. They’re going to my sister-in-law’s lesbian wedding in August. We explained to them how some families have that setup and had a good conversation about it. My son brought it up in school and other kids - already at that age - said hateful things about it. That ain’t right.
You’re touching on critical race theory with the last one and this is the most slanted phrasing of the questions you placed. To be honest with you, I’m not that well versed on CRT. I propose that the truth be taught about our history. That truth shows that it’s more advantageous to be a straight white male, some of whom did some horrific things throughout history, but I don’t feel anyone should be told that they’re bad for their race.
Those are several hot button issues but also just a small sector of many of the issues at play. If you look at things like defense spending, an area I know intimately, and watch things like the Congressional hearings on Transdigm, you would be nauseousky embarrassed by the statements Republican representatives said in that hearing. I was also sick to my stomach After hearing Pete Sessions talk.
I don’t view politics as two sided. I view it as multi spectral. I might vote for a democrat here, a libertarian there and a Republican over there depending on what office they’re in, what their platform is and how qualified they are. Given the current state of republicans, extremism and affiliation also come into play. I don’t understand how people can see obvious actions of people like Hawley, Greene, Cruz, Graham, Boebert, Gosar, Cawthorne, Trump, McCarthy, etc and not be concerned over the direction of the party.
Trump is fun to use against the haters whose heads he lives in. Those who grabbed at all the lies and misinformation put out by the Media and Dems over the years. I will be looking for someone to replace him as leader of the Republican Party. I have one in mind, if he runs. But I will support the Republican nominee.
From what I have seen of your many posts, you knock Republicans and are wishy washy on the Dems. Your bias shows.
I think the teachers should be concentrating on teaching our students Math, Science, Reading and Writing. Our Nation falls farther behind each year.
I shudder to imagine the Math teacher, playing faux Psychologist, teaching our K thru 3 kids about gender/sexual identity.
I think the math teacher example is a bit extreme. I also like the wholistic curriculum we keep because I think it expands creativity and innovation, one of our many international strengths, at least historically. Countries like China are great at math, but poor at innovating and inventing.
Hearing you call me biased you must admit is the pot calling the kettle black, but I also don’t think it’s true. Believe it or not, my favorite politician in all of politics right now is a Republican. Those who I slam are not republicans as a whole, but the new breed who has demonstrated a VERY concerning behavior, especially in an historical context. Like approaching Goebbels level crazy.
Admittedly, that has captured a lot of my focus. However, if you don’t think I’m hard on the Dems, perhaps you have not read a lot of my posts, especially what I believe to be my initial one in the What the Democrats Have Become thread. It was either that or a similar one. I think they, for the most part are inept, fractured and ineffective. I think a lot of the chief Dems lack the insight to see that their party is detached enough to approach the level of what happened to the Republicans in 2016.
Like DC mentioned in another thread, most of my differences with the majority of liberals come down to policy discussions whereas my differences with many of the Trumpian-associated faction comes down to irrational exuberance.
You may notice that I engage a lot of people on the conservative side in what I consider to be well-founded debate. Guys like FATE, Peen, arch, etc. I genuinely enjoy those discussions. Then when I see posts dripping with anger/ignorance/fear/inflammatory rhetoric, I can’t help but be patronizing in response at times. I think you’re perceiving that as my bias.
My Kettle is black to yours being a rainbow color.
Innovation fails if you lack the Math skills to make it work or the Language skills to communicate it.
Or they simply won’t follow the science. Which is exactly why the vast majority of your GOP leadership can’t innovate their way out of a brown paper bag.
Leading Proud Boys member pleads guilty to U.S. Capitol riot charges
oto Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A leader of the far-right Proud Boys pleaded guilty on Friday to charges related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, a victory for prosecutors that could bolster their cases against members of the group.
Charles Donohoe, the leader of the group's North Carolina chapter at the time of the Capitol attack, entered the guilty plea during court hearing on Friday in the District of Columbia.
Donohoe admitted to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and assaulting and impeding police officers.
Under U.S. sentencing guidelines, Donohoe faces a likely sentence of around six years in prison, with credit for time already served. He will be sentenced at a later court hearing.
Donohoe agreed to cooperate with prosecutors as they prepare for trial against other Proud Boys defendants. Donohoe, 34, was arrested in March 2021. He has been in custody since last year.
Former President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the seat of Congress that day in a bid to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
Donohoe and other Proud Boys were videotaped leading a crowd toward the Capitol during the riot.
"Mr. Donohoe is charged with interfering in the nation's peaceful transfer of power," U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said during a court hearing in June, adding that the charges are "gravely serious matters that favor detention."
An indictment unsealed last month alleged that Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio was deeply involved in recruiting members of the group and directing their actions in the days prior to the Jan. 6 attack.
Tarrio's attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf during a hearing on Tuesday.
In a separate hearing on Friday, a different judge declined to postpone a trial scheduled for some members of the Oath Keepers militia group who joined in the Capitol breach. Those defendants are charged with seditious conspiracy, a rarely used law prohibiting attempts to overthrow the government.
Defense lawyers had requested the delay, saying they needed more time to review evidence. But U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta cited his own scheduling conflicts and the need to bring cases to trial.
Lawyers also suggested that all 11 Oath Keepers defendants go on trial at the same time. Mehta said that proposal was logistically impossible in the federal courthouse in the District of Columbia.
CNN Exclusive: ‘We control them all’: Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows ideas for overturning 2020 election before it was called
By Ryan Nobles, Zachary Cohen and Annie Grayer, CNN Updated 10:02 AM EDT, Sat April 9, 2022 Video Ad Feedback
— Two days after the 2020 presidential election, as votes were still being tallied, Donald Trump’s eldest son texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that “we have operational control” to ensure his father would get a second term, with Republican majorities in the US Senate and swing state legislatures, CNN has learned.
In the text, which has not been previously reported, Donald Trump Jr. lays out ideas for keeping his father in power by subverting the Electoral College process, according to the message reviewed by CNN. The text is among records obtained by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021.
“It’s very simple,” Trump Jr. texted to Meadows on November 5, adding later in the same missive: “We have multiple paths We control them all.”
Ad Feedback Video Ad Feedback 04:16 - Source: CNN See ex-Trump official's reaction to Trump Jr.'s 'revealing' texts In a statement to CNN, Trump Jr.’s lawyer Alan S. Futerfas said, “After the election, Don received numerous messages from supporters and others. Given the date, this message likely originated from someone else and was forwarded.”
Immediately before his text to Meadows describing multiple paths for challenging the election, Trump Jr. texted Meadows the following: “This is what we need to do please read it and please get it to everyone that needs to see it because I’m not sure we’re doing it.”
The November 5 text message outlines a strategy that is nearly identical to what allies of the former President attempted to carry out in the months that followed. Trump Jr. makes specific reference to filing lawsuits and advocating recounts to prevent certain swing states from certifying their results, as well as having a handful of Republican state houses put forward slates of fake “Trump electors.”
If all that failed, according to the Trump Jr. text, GOP lawmakers in Congress could simply vote to reinstall Trump as President on January 6.
“We have operational control Total leverage,” the message reads. “Moral High Ground POTUS must start 2nd term now.”
The text from Trump Jr. is revealing on a number of levels. It shows how those closest to the former President were already exchanging ideas for how to overturn the election months before the January 6 insurrection – and before all the votes were even counted. It would be another two days before major news outlets declared Joe Biden the winner on November 7.
The text also adds to a growing body of evidence of how Trump’s inner circle was actively engaged in discussing how to challenge the election results.
On March 28, Judge David Carter, a federal judge in California, said that Trump, along with conservative lawyer John Eastman, launched an “unprecedented” campaign to overturn a democratic election, calling it “a coup in search of a legal theory.”
George Terwilliger, an attorney for Meadows, declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the House select committee declined to comment.
Foreshadowing the Trump campaign strategy In the weeks following the 2020 election, Trump and his allies eventually filed more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits in key states, failing to convince the courts that his claims about a stolen election were justified, or uncover any evidence of widespread voter fraud.
They also called for various recounts based on those same unfounded voter fraud claims. A number of states conducted recounts in the months after the election, though none of them revealed any fraud substantial enough to have changed the outcome of the vote in any state.
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states While Trump Jr. was publicly pushing various voter fraud conspiracy theories and generally casting doubt about the results in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, his text to Meadows reveals there were other ideas being discussed privately.
Specifically, Trump Jr. previews a strategy to supplant authentic electors with fake Republican electors in a handful of states. That plan was eventually orchestrated and carried out by allies of the former President, and overseen by his then-attorney Rudy Giuliani.
In his text to Meadows, Trump Jr. identifies two key dates in December that serve as deadlines for states to certify their electoral results and compel Congress to accept them. Though the dates are largely ceremonial, in his text Trump Jr. appears to point to them as potential weaknesses to be exploited by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election results.
Seeking Trump electors Trump Jr.’s November 5 text to Meadows came as similar notions of faithless electors were starting to percolate publicly on conservative social media. Trump Jr. sent the text to Meadows at 12:51 p.m., just minutes after conservative radio host Mark Levin had tweeted a similar idea and suggested state legislatures have final say on electors.
If secretaries of state were unable to certify the results, Trump Jr. argues in his text to Meadows that they should press their advantage by having Republican-controlled state assemblies “step in” and put forward separate slates of “Trump electors,” he writes.
Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN “Republicans control Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina etc we get Trump electors,” Trump Jr. adds.
Trump Jr.’s text, however, refers to an untested legal theory that state houses are the ultimate authority in elections and can intervene to put forward a different slate of electors than those chosen by the voters, when in reality this is a ceremonial process and the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion.
The Justice Department and the House committee are both investigating the fake electors plot within the context of what unfolded on January 6 and Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election.
The strategy floated by Trump Jr. is similar to what was outlined by former Texas Governor and Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who texted Meadows on November 4 suggesting three state legislatures ignore the will of their voters and deliver their states’ electors to Trump.
January 6 committee subpoenas individuals tied to fake elector push “HERE’s an AGRESSIVE (sic) STRATEGY: Why can t (sic) the states of GA NC PENN and other R controlled state houses declare this is BS (where conflicts and election not called that night) and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS,” Perry’s text message read.
A spokesman for Perry told CNN at the time that the former Energy secretary denies being the author of the text. However, multiple people who know Rick Perry previously confirmed to CNN that the phone number the committee has associated with that text message is Perry’s number.
‘We control them all’ Trump Jr. also texts Meadows that Congress could intervene on January 6 and overturn the will of voters if, for some reason, they were unable to secure enough electoral votes to tip the outcome in Trump’s favor using the state-based strategy.
That option, according to Trump Jr.’s text, involves a scenario where neither Biden nor Trump have enough electoral votes to be declared a winner, prompting the House of Representatives to vote by state party delegation, with each state getting one vote.
“Republicans control 28 states Democrats 22 states,” Trump Jr. texts. “Once again Trump wins.”
“We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021,” he texts Meadows.
John Eastman. January 6 committee obtains emails that former Trump attorney John Eastman sought to keep secret In a series of memos in early January, conservative lawyer John Eastman proposed a variation of that idea.
Eastman’s memo laid out a six-step plan for Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election for Trump, which included throwing out the results in seven states because they allegedly had competing electors. In fact, no state had actually put forward an alternate slate of electors – there were merely Trump allies claiming without any authority to be electors.
Eastman, who has been subpoenaed by the House select committee and is fighting to keep some of his records secret from investigators, was accused by Carter of likely engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Trump to overturn the election.
“Dr. Eastman has an unblemished record as an attorney and respectfully disagrees with the judge’s findings,” his attorney Charles Burnham said in response to the judge’s ruling.
Trump Jr. pushes Meadows to fire Wray and install loyalist at FBI Trump Jr. ends his November 5 text by calling for a litany of personnel moves to solidify his father’s control over the government by putting loyalists in key jobs and initiate investigations into the Biden family.
“Fire Wray; Fire Fauci,” he texts, referring to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci. Trump Jr. then proposes making former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell interim head of the FBI and having then-Attorney General Bill Barr “select Special prosecutor on HardDrivefromHell Biden crime family.”
As Trump refused to concede in the days and weeks after the 2020 election, rumors swirled that he was still considering firing Wray, along with several other top officials with whom he had grown frustrated.
Alarm grows over Trump administration acting 'more akin to a dictatorship' as he denies election defeat Trump and his allies sharply criticized Wray for failing to produce information that they claimed would be harmful to the President’s political enemies, including Biden. CNN previously reported that the prospect of Trump firing Wray hung over the FBI for weeks, dating to before Election Day.
While Wray remains in his post and Barr resigned in mid-December 2020 without naming a special prosecutor to investigate the Bidens, Trump Jr.’s text underscores just how precarious the situation at DOJ was in the immediate aftermath of the election.
The same is true for Trump Jr.’s recommendation that Meadows replace Wray with Grenell, someone who not only lacked the usual qualifications to lead the FBI but also had a proven track record of doing the former President’s bidding.
After serving a controversial three-month stint as Trump’s acting intel chief, Grenell hit the campaign trail in late 2020 to help promote Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and support his legal challenges in a key swing state: Nevada.
Grenell takes parting shot at Democrats as he exits top intelligence job On November 5, Biden held a slim lead over Trump in Nevada but appeared poised to win the state’s six electoral votes. That same day, Grenell and Trump campaign officials announced they were filing a new lawsuit to “stop the counting of illegal votes” but provided no evidence to support their claims of rampant fraud. This story has been updated with new details of a text message Trump Jr. sent to Meadows.
Former cop who stormed Capitol guilty on all 6 counts in second Jan. 6 jury trial
Thomas Robertson, a former police officer in Rocky Mount, Virginia, was found guilty Monday.
WASHINGTON — A former police officer who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was found guilty of all six charges at his trial Monday.
Thomas Robertson, who was an officer in Rocky Mount, Virginia, when he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, was arrested in January 2021 and fired soon after by the city.
The outcome was another win for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is overseeing an unprecedented investigation into the hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Robertson was the second Jan. 6 defendant to take his case to a jury, after Guy Reffitt was convicted on all counts last month. In the Robertson case, jurors deliberated Friday afternoon and all day Monday before they reached a verdict just before 5:30 p.m.
Jacob Fracker, a fellow police officer whom Robertson called "son," testified on behalf of the prosecution after he reached a plea deal with the government last month. Fracker, a Trump supporter, admitted he participated in a conspiracy to “corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede" the certification of Joe Biden's Electoral College victory.
Fracker testified that he decided to plead guilty and cooperate because he could cut down on his exposure to prison time and because he was thinking of his young daughter.
Robertson was charged with six counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.
It is bizzare how people will justify treason. The republican party was supposed to be the party of Law and Order. Support of police and Law and Order.
Patriotism a word that means "devotion to and vigorous support for one's country."
trump and those in his circle fought to overthrow the Law of the Land and the foundation of democracy - the vote.
The evidence is clear.
These people are traitors. During a war they would be executed. At the least the should have their citzenship revoked and they should be exiled.
They do not deserve to take another step on the soil of the United States.
But this goes to the heart of one of the issues .... when the right wing media and right wing politicians spew lies and hate and frame a narrative that the country and its values are under attack from the left and from Democrats, then to take up arms to prevent the communists from takking power after a fraudulent vote IS patriotic. Jan 6th got stopped, despite efforts the transfer of power eventually took place and some responsi le are being g h3ld accountable....... What hasn't changed is the continued lies, hate, division spewing from the Right .... be it politicians, media or posters right here on dawgtalkers.net..... do some on the left reciprocate and spread fear and escolate/lie and frame the debates? Definitely. But it is not equal and opposite, 2hat is happening with the GOP is very calculated and very wicked. And Jan 6th hasn't changed it one bit.
Treason: "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."
Nothing you stated has a thing to do with treason.
How about failure of "oath of office?" Protect the people of the country.
Match that phrase to: Lying to the people about covid. Knowing what was going to happen and then lying to the people. Then saying "I did it to protect them from panic." Like lying about the path of a hurricane to protect the people from panic.
"You told me about treason?" Look no further than trump and the those that abetted and or participated in the Insurrection.
Here I will help you. Insurrection definition: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
I won't waste the word patrotism on someone who supports trump.
Get your buddy on a conference call with the families who lost loved ones to covid.
While he told the American public it would go away with warm weather. All those who wanted to believe "the president" while he told them try a disinfectant.
You are lying to yourself if you believe he is anything more than a Putin wannabe.
He has no capacity for compassion for anyone but himself. If he was in the same position as Putin. He would be doing the same thing.
You somehow can excuse his actions to politics when in fact he is a criminal. Covid is now "accepted."
trumps's response to covid was criminal and was the direct cause of thousands of deaths.
What I said was "if there was justice trump would have died from covid."
I did not wish his death. But I for sure would not have been sorry.
“The American people are fed up with this over-dramatization of a riot that happened here at the Capitol one time,” the Georgia Republican told NBC News recently. “They are sick and tired of Jan. 6 — it’s over, OK?”
Quote from Marjorie Taylor Greene. Let us Not forget. OK. It was a violent uprising urged on by the then-President of the United States because he was unhappy that he didn’t win the election.
Fact #1: Five people died that day.
Fact #2: More than 100 police officers were injured by the rioters.
Fact #3: More than 750 people from 48 states have been charged for their roles in the riot, according to a database maintained by USA Today.
Fact #4: It was the first time the Capitol had been breached since the British did it in 1814 as part of the War of 1812.
Fact #5: The rioters broke into the building with the express goal of stopping the certification of the 2020 election that had been won by Joe Biden and lost by Donald Trump.
It is good to see you lefties getting worked up about riots. I wish your angst wasn’t so selective but it is a start. I am glad you are so concerned about the 100 injured police officers. I assume I can find a past post with you decrying the 2000+ injured police officers that were injured during the “mostly peaceful” (laugh laugh) riots during the summer of 20. I know it is out there.
Joseph goebbels said that if you repeat the big lie often enough people will start to believe it. The left spent 3.5 years lying to Americans about Donald Trump. You know, he was a Putin puppet, a Russian asset, a commie in the White House. Despite all the lying Americans knew better and they will figure this one out too. There was no insurrection, no treason no sedition. According to the FBI there was no organization behind the event.
I do not know anyone who was there January 6. But I would bet my social security that if I gathered all of them, 600 , 700, 800, however many there were, and told them America is under attack from a foreign power , will you defend her, the answer would not be “yes”, it would be “hell yes!!! Where is my gun. Now this contrasts quite sadly to the quinnipiac poll of democrats, of whom 52% said they would not defend America under attack. That is 52%!!!
So if I need somebody to have my back I know who to pick and who to avoid.
It is good to see you lefties getting worked up about riots. I wish your angst wasn’t so selective but it is a start. I am glad you are so concerned about the 100 injured police officers. I assume I can find a past post with you decrying the 2000+ injured police officers that were injured during the “mostly peaceful” (laugh laugh) riots during the summer of 20. I know it is out there.
Joseph goebbels said that if you repeat the big lie often enough people will start to believe it. The left spent 3.5 years lying to Americans about Donald Trump. You know, he was a Putin puppet, a Russian asset, a commie in the White House. Despite all the lying Americans knew better and they will figure this one out too. There was no insurrection, no treason no sedition. According to the FBI there was no organization behind the event.
I do not know anyone who was there January 6. But I would bet my social security that if I gathered all of them, 600 , 700, 800, however many there were, and told them America is under attack from a foreign power , will you defend her, the answer would not be “yes”, it would be “hell yes!!! Where is my gun. Now this contrasts quite sadly to the quinnipiac poll of democrats, of whom 52% said they would not defend America under attack. That is 52%!!!
So if I need somebody to have my back I know who to pick and who to avoid.
Character.... Something you clearly don't understand.
Obviously you would not know a fact if was tatooed on your forehead.
fact: hydroxychloroquine
High quality research data show the use of HCQ for treating COVID-19 can be dangerous and has no medical benefit. In fact, the FDA has revoked emergency use authorization for HCQ in COVID-19 patients based on these dangers and because it does not help people recover faster. HCQ should not be taken for COVID-19 infection because it can cause serious heart rhythm abnormalities, severe liver inflammation, and kidney failure.
trump said it is good for you. So go ahead mix it with some disinfectant it will help you with fact checking.
I assume I can find a past post with you decrying the 2000+ injured police officers that were injured during the “mostly peaceful” (laugh laugh) riots during the summer of 20. I know it is out there.
If you aren't smart enough to figure it out you're beyond help. When people commit crimes they are to be tied and punished. When this actually happened, almost every poster on this board said the criminal acts should be punished. From both political sides. The sad part is that someone had to explain it to you.
I get it bonefish I really do. You lefties have a need to make Donald trump the villain in all things human. To do it you will distort, exaggerate, lie, what’s ever it takes. You try with everything you have to paint the picture you want but sometimes nasty little facts get in the way.
When the Chicomms dumped this virus on the world we had no vaccine, no therapeutic modalities, really nothing. So as they often do in medicine they start throwing things against the wall hoping something sticks. And we worked our way from nothing to having a variety of therapies and, of course, a vaccine. A vaccine which we would not have if good old joe was President at the time because we would still be jumping thru regulatory hoops that trump bypassed. You can thank him later.
You totally distorted the record of HCQ by the way . To start, HCG was a known antiviral used for decades. The idea of trying it on anew virus made perfect sense, though I am certain the President got it from his medical advisors. In august of 2020 a review of current studies showed it to be effective in an outpatient setting early in the onset of the disease. Less effective when patients were in ICU. The studies were a mixed bag of helps, early onset , and not as effective after hospitalization.
We are now much further along in our therapeutics. We know a lot more now than we did. We should all be glad of that.
By the way adding that really dumb comment about disinfectant just demonstrates how off kilter you lefties are. Haters gotta hate!!
When it was first known that covid hit the US how did trump respond?
Answer. He lied. He lied because he believed it would hurt him politically. He basicaly stuck his head in the sand.
He could have gotten all the governors, news agencies, medical professionals, social media platforms, along with Congress and declared War against a common enemy threat to the country. Provide an honest, scientific, medically based unified message to the Public. On what would take place and how to best protect yourself.
Instead he hid from the facts. Promoted quack cures. Went anti-mask.
His lack of a correct response cost hundreds of thousands of lives. People who wanted honest answers from "The President" fell victim to his lies and lost their lives. That is a fact. He should rot in hell for that.
His lies started on the day of inaguaration about the crowd size, and never stopped. He lied to about everything taxes, Stormy, trump U, his school record, SAT test, the list would take pages. He is still lying about the BIG Lie. He lost.
The only time he did not lie about was when he got off the bus and talked about grabbing Pu**y and how he could do what he wanted.
Historians have already labeled him as the worst president in US history.
But go ahead keep believing your false messiah. Get your reinforced information from Alex Jones and his likes.
Follow your leader down the path of lies, corruption, crime and insurrection. Join up with Proud Boys and try to overthrow the gevernment of the United States.
Then pretend they were on a picnic and didn't mean to trespass.
Maybe. But what I do understand is that when the facts are irrefutable, nonsensical responses will have to do.
What's funny about your comment regarding Nazis, that is exactly what Trump and his Minions (like you apparently) have done. Everything he said about Hillary was a lie, everything he said about Obama was a lie.
And he and his minions like you repeated the lies until the masses to the Right believed them.
The big lie now is that he won the election and it was stolen.
Bull... Not one case presented to any court in the land has found for Trump and his Minions lies. NOT ONE. Not one states election results have been found to be fraudulent.. NOT ONE>
So what does Trump and his Mininons do,,, OK,, Lets get rid of those that won't lie for us.. Like the governor of Georgia.. He didn't fall in line with the Dictator Trump and his Minions so he's gotta go.
As for things like the Russia investigation, Mueller said when questioned, he had enough to charge Trump.. The lie here is that that Trump boytoy AG Barr LIED about what was in the Mueller Report.. That has been proven...You don't believe me,, get hold of the report, read it for yourself if you got the courage to be proven wrong...
So when I make a simple response, it's because I don't want to get into all the lies told by the Trumpians out there..
trump failed in a time of crisis. He failed his oath of office to protect the American people. He chose to lie. When the country was praying for real leadership. He told the public it will all go away when it gets warm. He attacked science and tried to divert the blame.
Then when he lost the election. He lost the popular vote both times. What was his response to the transition of power?
He gathered his loyalists and went through extensive plans to subvert the will of the people. He incited an insurrection to overthrow the govermnent.
And people like 40 and keith support this traitor.
trump failed in a time of crisis. He failed his oath of office to protect the American people. He chose to lie. When the country was praying for real leadership. He told the public it will all go away when it gets warm. He attacked science and tried to divert the blame.
Then when he lost the election. He lost the popular vote both times. What was his response to the transition of power?
He gathered his loyalists and went through extensive plans to subvert the will of the people. He incited an insurrection to overthrow the govermnent.
And people like 40 and keith support this traitor.
The real traitors in America are those like 40 and Keith that support Trump no matter what he does. Also those that support the actions of Putin.. Also those that glorify Hitler or his Minions.
yet these are the VERY same people that are pointing a finger at Biden.... When pressed they don't have a leg to stand on.
‘Please tell me what I should be saying.’ Text messages show Sen. Mike Lee assisting Trump efforts to overturn 2020 election
Newly released text messages show Lee knew of scheme to send alternate electors to Congress nearly a month earlier than he claimed.
By Bryan Schott | April 15, 2022, 10:13 a.m.| Updated: 5:58 p.m.
Newly released text messages between Sen. Mike Lee and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows show Lee was advising and assisting former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The messages also reveal Lee was aware of a legally dubious strategy to have then-Vice President Mike Pence throw out Electoral College votes much earlier than he had claimed.
CNN published almost 100 text messages from Lee and Texas Rep. Chip Roy to Meadows in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 election loss. The texts trace how Lee went from being a fierce advocate for Trump’s efforts to warning the White House that the scheme could backfire. Lee eventually announced he was opposed to a plan to have Congress object to the Electoral College results in some battleground states, but the texts reveal that only came after Lee worked for months to assist Trump’s efforts.
Lee’s efforts to assist Trump began Nov. 7, the day Democrat Joe Biden was declared the winner. He texted Meadows a statement signed by the leaders of several prominent conservative groups urging Trump to “exhaust every legal and constitutional remedy” in challenging the results.
“Use it however you deem appropriate,” Lee wrote. “And if it’s helpful to you for you to leak it, feel free to do so.”
Lee also pressed Meadows to help lawyer Sidney Powell gain access to Trump. Powell alleged a secret cabal, including George Soros, the late Hugo Chávez, the CIA and thousands of election officials, conspired to steal votes from Trump in 2020.
“Sydney (sic) Powell is saying she needs to get in to see the president, but she’s being kept away from him. Apparently she has a strategy to keep things alive and put several states back in play. Can you help her get in?” Lee wrote to Meadows on Nov. 7.
Two days later, Lee again reached out to Meadows on behalf of Powell.
“Sidney told us the campaign lawyer who do not know are not focused on this and are obstructing progress. I have no way of verifying or refuting that on my own, but I’ve found her to be a straight shooter,” Lee wrote.
Powell’s conspiracy claims resulted in her being sued for defamation by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. Powell is facing multiple disciplinary actions, including disbarment, in several states for her actions following the 2020 election.
On Nov. 19, Lee realizes his backing of Powell may have been a mistake following a disastrous news conference where she detailed bizarre claims about a global communist plot to rig the election against Trump.
“I’m worried about the Powell press conference,” Lee wrote in the first in a series of text messages. “Unless Powell can back up everything she said, which I kind of doubt she can.”
Over the next three days, Lee reached out to Meadows several times, asking for marching orders.
“Please give me something to work with. I just need to know what I should be saying,” Lee wrote on Nov. 19.
“Please tell me what I should be saying,” Lee asked the next day.
On Nov. 23, Lee first brings up lawyer John Eastman, suggesting some irregularities in several states and proposing an audit.
“Eastman has some really interesting research on this. The good news is is (sic) that Eastman is proposing an approach that unlike what Sidney Powell has propose (sic) could be examined very quickly,” Lee said.
Eastman was behind a scheme to subvert the election results by having a handful of states carried by Biden submit alternate slates of electors. Competing slates would allow the Vice President to reject the results from those states, possibly throwing the election to the House of Representatives to keep Trump in the White House.
Lee claimed he first learned of the Eastman plan on Jan. 2, when he received a copy of a confidential memo from the White House. He told authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa he was “surprised” by the plan and made “phone call after phone call” to see if any states were ready to certify alternate electors but found none.
In reality, Lee was aware of the gambit nearly a month before he claimed.
On Dec. 8, Lee texted Meadows, “If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a plan,” Lee wrote.
“I am working on that as of yesterday,” Meadows replied.
Eastman invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when questioned by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Eastman was asked about his communications with Lee but also pleaded the Fifth.
On Dec. 16, Lee asked Meadows if they wanted any senators to object to the certification of electoral votes, which was part of the Eastman plan to throw out the results. But Lee appeared to be cooling on the plan, realizing such a move may not be legal.
“Also, if you want senators to object, we need to hear from you on that ideally getting some guidance on what arguments to raise,” Lee wrote.
“I think we’re now passed the point where we can expect anyone will do it without some direction and a strong evidentiary argument,” Lee added.
The next available message to Meadows came on Jan. 3, when he warned of the efforts by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others to object to the election results.
“I have grave concerns with the way my friend Ted is going about this effort,” Lee wrote. “This will not inure to the benefit of the president.”
But, Lee was still hoping that some states would certify alternate slates of electors, making objecting to the results much easier.
“Everything changes, of course, if the swing states submit competing slates of electors pursuant to state law,” Lee said.
Lee warns Meadows that the effort to have Congress give the win to Trump could backfire on the president.
“I know only this will end badly for the president unless we have the Constitution on our side. And unless these states submit new slates of Trump electors pursuant to state law, we do not,” Lee wrote.
The next day, Trump took a public shot at Lee during a rally in Georgia after Lee announced he did not support objecting to the election results.
“Mike Lee is here, but I’m a little angry at him,” Trump said.
Lee was not happy about being publicly called out by the president and vented to Meadows.
“I’ve been spending 14 hours a day for the last week trying to unravel this for him. To have him take a shot at me like that in such a public setting without even asking me about it is pretty discouraging,” Lee said.
Lee explained he had been calling legislators in several states trying to develop a way to defend Congress throwing out results in favor of Trump. In one text, Lee suggested he was trying to convince those state lawmakers to manufacture a pretext for Congress to act.
“We need something from state legislatures to make this legitimate and to have any hope of winning. Even if they can’t convene, it might be enough if a majority of them are willing to sign a statement indicating how they would vote,” Lee wrote.
Ultimately, Lee did not join other Republicans in objecting to the results.
The Tribune has reached out to Sen. Lee’s office for comment.
Lee is facing Republicans Becky Edwards and Ally Isom in a June primary election as he seeks a third term in Congress.
In a statement to The Tribune, Edwards ripped Lee for his involvement in the scheme to overturn the election results.
“Sen. Mike Lee researched overturning a lawful, democratic election for partisan and political gain. The moment Lee realized the gravity of Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election, he should have stopped researching the legality of such actions and stopped pressuring local legislators,” Edwards’ campaign said in a text message.
“Lee has an obligation to protect and defend our Constitution and democratic process, as he swore to do when he took office. Instead, he allowed the situation to continue and enabled those seeking to keep themselves in power, no matter the consequences,” Edwards added.
In a statement, Isom said the text messages from Lee have wrecked his credibility.
“When a sitting US senator asks what he should say, he is freely admitting he is more concerned with playing DC games — with the politics of politics — rather than the people of Utah. Utah wants someone to fight for our state — someone who refuses to be just another chess piece the Washington, DC, apparatus can push around,” Isom said.
Independent U.S. Senate candidate Evan McMullin also jumped on Lee’s text messages, suggesting Lee tried to obscure his involvement in the election scheme.
“Why did Sen. Mike lee advise spurious legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election? And why did he hide those plans in the days leading up to Jan. 6?” McMullin said on Twitter, connecting his post to a fundraising appeal.
Democratic candidate Kael Weston chimed in, saying Lee was acting more like Trump’s lawyer instead of representing Utah.
“Instead of plotting with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to further divide our nation & undermine our democracy, Lee should have been working on behalf of Utahns who pay his salary,” Weston tweeted.
John Eastman blocking 3,200 Trump-related documents from House January 6 committee
John Eastman, a far-right lawyer for then-President Donald Trump who wanted to block his electoral loss in 2020, is still withholding about 3,200 documents from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, according to a new court filing this week.
Eastman previously was ordered by the court to turn over 101 documents after he unsuccessfully tried to claim some of his emails from January 4 through January 7, 2021, were confidential legal communications related to Trump. Since then, Eastman has continued to work through nearly 100,000 pages of emails from his Chapman University account that the House Committee seeks from other dates around the election.
At this time, Eastman is arguing that the thousands of documents, comprising about 36,000 pages, should stay confidential.
Federal Judge David Carter in Santa Ana, California, may continue to weigh whether Eastman can keep those pages secret.
The judge’s previous decision giving the House access to more than 101 documents was a pivotal moment in the investigation and a setback for Eastman as he continues to try to keep secret some of his emails.
The ongoing Eastman lawsuit also is a reminder that the committee is still tied up in court on multiple fronts, fighting for their subpoenas to be fulfilled.
The House select committee obtained 101 emails two weeks ago that capture extensive discussions among Eastman and others about using court cases as a political argument to block Congress from certifying the vote, according to past proceedings in the court case.
One email, a draft memo for Rudy Giuliani, was obtained by the committee because the judge decided it was potentially being used to plan a crime. The memo recommended that then-Vice President Mike Pence reject some states’ electors during the January 6 congressional meeting.
“This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action,” Carter wrote.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” the judge also wrote.
The judge ordered the release of the other emails in the batch because they weren’t about litigation, so they couldn’t be protected as the work of an attorney.
Carter’s reasoning was a startling acknowledgment by a federal court that Trump’s interest in overturning the election could be considered criminal. The House committee doesn’t have the ability to prosecute Trump or his allies, but the panel has toyed with formally asking the Justice Department to investigate. In the case, the House made the bold move of arguing Trump was trying to obstruct Congress and defraud the government by blocking his loss of the election and discussing it with Eastman, an argument Carter agreed with.
The state of California’s attorney regulators are reviewing Eastman’s legal ethics related to the election, and Trump and Eastman have not been charged with any crime.
“If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself,” the judge wrote.
Eastman did not appeal Carter’s ruling on the 101 documents.
The documents still in dispute are from Election Day 2020 up to January 4, 2021, and January 7 through Joe Biden’s inauguration two weeks later.
Uber driver turned in alleged Jan. 6 rioter who boasted on dashcam
A California man who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection was arrested after his Uber driver tipped off the FBI, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday.
Driving the news: Jerry Daniel Braun allegedly told the Uber driver during a trip to his hotel on Jan. 6, 2021 that he tore down a barricade at the Capitol. The encounter was recorded by the driver's dashboard-mounted camera; the footage ultimately allowed the FBI to track him down.
Details: According to the Justice Department's affidavit, the clip shows a man bleeding near his right eye as the driver asks, "So, has it been violent all day?"
"Well, it started around, right when I got there. I tore down the barricades," the man replies. When asked why, he adds, "So we could get to the Capitol."
"Well, how’d that work out for ya?" the driver prods.
"Well, it looks like, uh, Biden’s gonna be our president."
The FBI was also able to identify Braun in an officer's body camera footage, which allegedly shows Braun holding a long wooden plank that looks to be about eight feet in length.
He appears to repeatedly strike a photographer who is wearing a helmet with the text "PRESS" displayed across the front, per the affidavit.
Braun also allegedly sent a text message to someone on Jan. 6 saying, "We tried to stop the steal but they wouldn't let us in, where were you, the writing your next speech, we are sick of all the talk."
The big picture: Braun, who was arrested in California earlier this month, now faces charges of obstruction during civil disorder, entering and remaining on restricted grounds, and violent or disorderly conduct.
Florida man pleads guilty to threatening Rep. Ilhan Omar
A Florida man pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges that he had threatened to kill Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar after she directed profanities at then-President Donald Trump in a 2019 news conference.
According to a plea agreement, David Hannon, 67, was “upset by [Omar’s] use of curse words directed at then-president Trump during the press conference” when he sent her an email with the subject line “[You’re] Dead, You Radical Muslim.”
The email, an all-caps screed that was reproduced in court documents, came amid an ugly fight between Trump and the so-called “Squad” of progressive female lawmakers, which includes Omar. The Minnesota Democrat held the news conference alongside the other lawmakers after Trump sent racist tweets about their nationalities.
Hannon, identified in the plea agreement as a supporter of Trump in 2019, also called the four congresswomen “radical rats” and wrote, “All four of you will die and the American people will cheer! Patriots Against Islam!”
The Justice Department called Hannon’s threat “hate-motivated” in a news release Tuesday.
“Threatening to kill our elected officials, especially because of their race, ethnicity or religious beliefs, is offensive to our nation’s fundamental values,” Kristen Clarke, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.
In an email to CNN, Hannon’s lawyer, Michael Perry, said his client’s 2019 email “was a mistake and should have never happened.”
“However, Mr. Hannon has no hate for any of the members of Congress referenced in the email and has entered a plea of guilty to resolve the case with the Government. He is taking full responsibility for a single lapse of judgment which happened almost 3 years ago. He is not a threat to the Muslim community and carries no animosity towards them,” Perry said.
CNN has reached out to Omar’s office for comment. In court documents, prosecutors noted that the profanities she had used at the news conference were “specifically repeated quotes containing curse words from then-president Trump regarding social issues involving women and minorities.”
lmao at libtards complaining about increasing the divide when they are 90% of the problem.
You don't see Conservatives on the warpath about libtard BS.
All you see is (so called) Conservatives (should be referred to as Trumpians) complain about anything a Liberal says... ANYTHING.
Who started this BS... I'll tell you who did,, People that didn't like the fact that we elected a black man as president.... (even though the previous conservative President completely screwed this country up) Then as a counter punch, some in this country helped elect a hate mongering hitler clone to be president.
That Hitler wanna be spread hate and racism across the land and still does today with help from people like you.
Wow MGT has memory issues. This line of questioning, questions about history and facts, she's screwed. lol. She looks terrified. And you could see her struggling to try to stay ahead of the prosecutor when he started talking about insurrection. She's hit and she knows it.
Official: Meadows had been warned of possible 1/6 violence
By FARNOUSH AMIRI, ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK yesterday link
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former White House official told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, had been advised of intelligence reports showing the potential for violence, according to just-released transcripts.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a special assistant in the Trump White House, told the committee “there were concerns brought forward” to Meadows before the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but it was unclear what Meadows did with that information.
“I just remember Mr. Ornato coming in and saying that we had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th,” Hutchinson said, presumably referencing Anthony Ornato, a senior Secret Service official. “And Mr. Meadows said: ‘All right. Let’s talk about it.’”
The exact nature of what Meadows was told is not clear from Hutchinson’s testimony. Though law enforcement had been bracing for potential violence on Jan. 6, officials had not properly accounted for the prospect that a violent mob would attack the Capitol.
The filing late Friday is the latest in a long legal fight over the extent to which Meadows, whose proximity to Trump has made him a key target of House Democrats, can be forced to cooperate with the committee’s investigation. Meadows has handed over thousands of text messages, but he has refused to sit for an interview, has argued that he is immune from having to testify by virtue of his White House position, and has sued the committee.
The filing seeks a court ruling in the committee’s favor that Meadows has no valid basis to refuse to testify. It says the committee has refined the scope of its request to focus on seven specific topics, including testimony about communication with Congress before Jan. 6, 2021; White House plans to replace the leadership of Justice Department so the department could pursue Trump’s bogus claims of election fraud; and efforts to create alternate, or fake, slates of state electors who could change the outcome of the vote of the 2020 election that Democrat Joe Biden won.
The committee released excerpts of testimony from multiple witnesses it has interviewed, including Hutchinson. Besides describing warnings of potential violence provided to Meadows, Hutchinson revealed how the White House counsel’s office cautioned against plans to enlist fake electors in states, including in meetings involving Meadows and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
The filing also includes new text messages that Meadows turned over, including several from House Republicans who were pushing the former North Carolina congressman to act. Meadows’ close friend, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, suggests in a late text on Jan. 5, 2021 — the day before Congress was due to certify Biden’s victory — that Vice President Mike Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”
Meadows texted back in the early hours of Jan. 6: “I have pushed for this. Not sure it is going to happen.” Pence ultimately resisted the overwhelming pressure from Trump and his allies and did not attempt to object to Biden’s certification.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., was texting Meadows as early as Dec. 26, 2020: “Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!”
In the texts released by the committee, Perry encouraged Meadows to talk to Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who was sympathetic to Trump’s bogus claims of election fraud. A week later, on Jan. 3, Clark attended a meeting at the White House with Trump, where the prospect of elevating Clark to the role of acting attorney general was discussed — but adamantly resisted by Justice Department officials, who threatened to resign, and White House lawyers. Trump ultimately backed down.
Hutchinson said Meadows talked “frequently” to Clark, and Hutchinson recalled Clark’s presence at the White House and “his frequent outreach and communications.”
In another interview released by the committee Friday, former Justice Department official Steven Engel, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, said Clark had suggested that the department provide a legal opinion to Pence regarding the vice president’s authority to object to the certification of the presidential election. Engel said he told Clark that was “absurd” and reminded him that Pence’s role was a ceremonial one as president of the Senate.
The testimony released Friday also reinforced how certain Republicans in Congress were deeply involved in White House discussions about overturning the election in the months leading to the deadly insurrection.
Hutchinson, for instance, described several calls involving Meadows and members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus in late November and early December in which participants discussed what Pence’s role could be on Jan. 6, besides the ceremonial role he was required to play.
On those calls, according to Hutchinson, were representatives from Trump’s legal team, including Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, as well as Jordan and Perry.
Meadows’ lawsuit asked a judge to invalidate two subpoenas that he received from the committee, alleging they were “overly broad and unduly burdensome.” The suit accused the committee of overreaching by subpoenaing Verizon for his cellphone records.
After the complaint was filed, the House committee sent a contempt of Congress charge against Meadows to the full House, where it passed on a near-party-line vote. It was the first time the chamber had voted to hold a former member in contempt since the 1830s.
While an earlier contempt referral against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon resulted in an indictment, the Justice Department has been slower to decide whether to prosecute Meadows.
Any criminal case against Meadows would be more complex than that presented against Bannon, in part because Meadows was a White House chief of staff and because he had begun to cooperate with the committee, even providing documents to the nine-member panel.
Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, has previously defended his client by noting that due to Meadows’ willingness to turn over records, he should not be compelled to appear for an interview. Terwilliger did not immediately return an email seeking comment about the latest disclosures.
Did trump try to overthrow the election? Was his intent to hold the power of office while the voters elected Biden?
You’re asking a troll to expose itself for the troll it is. To defang it’s own troll-ness. It’ll just clap back with some non answer, or some more troll bait and wait for anyone to take it. Stop replying and it’ll die it’s little pathetic troll death… yelling at clouds that don’t yell back.
But it’s like calling out a clown for pulling a string of handkerchiefs out of its pocket. It’s just what it does. Trolls troll. It’s what they do. You can’t call it out. Just keep going on with your day. Let the clown be a clown.
At 2:38 p.m., Trump called for people to "support our Capitol police and law enforcement." He added that people should "stay peaceful" and that officers are "truly on the side of our country."
"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Trump tweeted at 3:13 p.m.
At 4 p.m., hours after the mob started clashing with police, Trump released a video on Twitter telling the crowd that he understood their "pain" and "hurt."
"We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now," he said. "We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.... So go home. We love you, you're very special.... I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace."
At 2:38 p.m., Trump called for people to "support our Capitol police and law enforcement." He added that people should "stay peaceful" and that officers are "truly on the side of our country."
"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Trump tweeted at 3:13 p.m.
At 4 p.m., hours after the mob started clashing with police, Trump released a video on Twitter telling the crowd that he understood their "pain" and "hurt."
"We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now," he said. "We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.... So go home. We love you, you're very special.... I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace."
You sure left a lot of ink on the site when you cherry picked that bit, because the article in its entirety is damning as hell. What a position of weakness, being forced to scour scathing articles for tidbits to twist! lmao@U.
Jan. 4: At a rally in Georgia the day before the Senate runoffs, Trump repeated his grievances about his own election. He spoke about a continued fight, both for himself and the Senate.
“If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now,” Trump said.
“We’re going to take it back,” Trump said.
“Our country has had enough,” Trump told his supporters. “We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”
The crowd later chanted: “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!” Trump thanked them.
Trump praised the crowd for traveling from across the nation and for “the extraordinary love.”
“We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy,” Trump said.
Trump repeatedly said there was a need to “fight.” After he bashed “weak” Republicans and Biden, he said: “Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight. If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to let you know who they are, I can already tell you, frankly.”
He continued with the fighting metaphors: “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder, and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.”
Trump then invited the crowd to go to the Capitol.
“And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Trump used the word “peacefully” once at his rally:
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period.”
What Trump said during and after the riot
By the time Trump finished his speech, crowds had already started to gather outside the Capitol.
Trump never joined them, but did tweet during the afternoon and night and released a video statement.
“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” he tweeted at 2:38 p.m. By that point, the mob had already shattered windows as they pushed inside the building.
His video statement repeated false claims about the fraudulent election and said, “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.”
He rehashed those themes in his final tweet of the night. It ended with these words: “Remember this day forever!”
The Democrats’ impeachment witch hunt has finally come to a close. Here’s the disgraceful sham by the numbers:
134 wasted days not working for the American people. 119 Democrats who supported impeachment before the whistleblower complaint became public. 17 Democrat witnesses called. 0 Republican witnesses called. 3 silver platters Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) used to present celebratory pens for the “solemn” signing ceremony. 33 days Speaker Nancy Pelosi held the extremely “urgent” articles of impeachment. 63 million votes Democrats tried to invalidate due to their hatred of the man in the White House. The impeachment political hit job lacked due process or fairness for the president, breaking all historical precedent. The Democrats’ unfounded case met its final fate in the Senate where it came crashing down due to lack of facts, evidence, or truth. The White House Defense Team obliterated the sham orchestrated by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Co. bit by bit.
No quid pro quo. No pressure. No impeachable offense.
Now, this unconstitutional impeachment expedition is the Democrats’ legacy. They are responsible for dividing our country and taking us down a long, hard road of impeachment solely because it’s what their radical base demanded. It’s been the goal since Jan. 20, 2017 when they saw President Trump step foot in the White House, promising to drain the swamp and put America first.
Their legacy of impeachment is all they have to show for their House majority – and the American people will judge them harshly. In the midst of it all, President Trump stood up for America on the world stage and worked to unleash the best economy in the world. He never let the impeachment noise from the swamp stop him.
It’s time to move on now that the Democrats’ efforts to dismiss 63 million Americans have been crushed. The impeachment chapter is closed, and the witch hunt is over.
President Trump is vindicated and acquitted for life.
WASHINGTON — A Senate still bruised from the most violent attack on the Capitol in two centuries acquitted former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday in his second impeachment trial, as all but a few Republicans locked arms to reject a case that he incited the Jan. 6 rampage in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power.
Under the watch of National Guard troops still patrolling the historic building, a bipartisan majority cast votes finding Mr. Trump guilty of the House’s single charge of “incitement of insurrection.” They included seven Republicans, more members of a president’s party than have ever returned an adverse verdict in an impeachment trial.
But with most of Mr. Trump’s party coalescing around him, the 57-to-43 tally fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, and allow the Senate to move to disqualify him from holding future office.
You know... if you're going to be so willfully ignorant that you ignore the realities of politics today, you should at least use the correct word.
Acquit mean he was found not guilty. This can be due to insufficient evidence/not meeting the threshold for legal guilt (or in this case, sufficient politicians not possessing a spine).
Exonerate indicates more than he was proven innocent (not the same thing as acquitted, and not what happened here). Also, I believe someone is exonerated only after they are found guilty and that decision is later reversed.
At 2:38 p.m., Trump called for people to "support our Capitol police and law enforcement." He added that people should "stay peaceful" and that officers are "truly on the side of our country."
"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Trump tweeted at 3:13 p.m.
At 4 p.m., hours after the mob started clashing with police, Trump released a video on Twitter telling the crowd that he understood their "pain" and "hurt."
"We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now," he said. "We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.... So go home. We love you, you're very special.... I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace."
The damning part of that video, if it turns out to be true, is at the 3:15-3:25 mark when she says there was a call in which multiple members of congress discussed getting members of the crowd at the trump rally to march on the Capitol building.
Five years max and up to 250K fine (bankrupting most likely) doesn't seem like much for trying to end American democracy, does it? They should create a registry like they do with sexual predators for these people. They should be watched the rest of their natural lives.
Jan. 6 panel announces eight hearings to be held in June
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol will be holding eight hearings in June, according to lawmakers on the panel.
“Eight’s a lot of hearings,” committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told CBS’s Robert Costa on Thursday when asked about the specific number following an announcement from Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
“You know most issues or subjects get one hearing or maybe two hearings. So we looked at essentially the comprehensive story that we have to tell, and we divided it up into chapters that will allow for the unfolding of the narrative, and we hope that it will make sense to people,” Raskin added.
Thompson told reporters earlier on Thursday that eight public hearings will be slated for June, including ones scheduled for primetime and daytime.
“We’ll tell the story about what happened,” the House committee chairman said, according to CBS News. “We will use a combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we’ve […] looked at, as well as the hundreds of witnesses we deposed or just talked to in general.”
The first of the eight hearings is anticipated to be held on June 9, according to Thompson.
He also said that by the end of the week, three House Republicans — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in addition to Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) — would be contacted by the committee, CNN reported.
Asked what would happen if any of the lawmakers refuse to testify, as all three of them have in the past, the panel chairman said, “Well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” according to CNBC.
In Raskin’s interview with Costa, the congressman indicated that the panel had not made up its mind over whether it wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to testify.
“I don’t know that that’s been decided yet. And you know, he’s spoken at length in public as to the major points, and so I think we have what we need from him, but I don’t think the committee’s decided yet,” Raskin explained.
Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes FILE - Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, takes part in a discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Feb. 26, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. Texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, a close ally and friend, at nearly midnight on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan offered a legal rationale for what President Donald Trump was publicly demanding — that Vice President Mike Pence, in his ceremonial role presiding over the electoral count, somehow assert the authority to reject electors from Biden-won states. (AP Photo/John Raoux, File) 1/3
FARNOUSH AMIRI Sun, May 1, 2022, 7:51 AM WASHINGTON (AP) — Rioters who smashed their way into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, succeeded — at least temporarily — in delaying the certification of Joe Biden’s election to the White House.
Hours before, Rep. Jim Jordan had been trying to achieve the same thing.
Texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, a close ally and friend, at nearly midnight on Jan. 5, Jordan offered a legal rationale for what President Donald Trump was publicly demanding — that Vice President Mike Pence, in his ceremonial role presiding over the electoral count, somehow assert the authority to reject electors from Biden-won states.
Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all,” Jordan wrote.
"I have pushed for this," Meadows replied. “Not sure it is going to happen.”
The text exchange, in an April 22 court filing from the congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, is in a batch of startling evidence that shows the deep involvement of some House Republicans in Trump’s desperate attempt to stay in power. A review of the evidence finds new details about how, long before the attack on the Capitol unfolded, several GOP lawmakers were participating directly in Trump's campaign to reverse the results of a free and fair election.
It's a connection that members of the House Jan. 6 committee are making explicit as they prepare to launch public hearings in June. The Republicans plotting with Trump and the rioters who attacked the Capitol were aligned in their goals, if not the mob's violent tactics, creating a convergence that nearly upended the nation's peaceful transfer of power.
“It appears that a significant number of House members and a few senators had more than just a passing role in what went on," Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, told The Associated Press last week.
Since launching its investigation last summer, the Jan. 6 panel has been slowly gaining new details about what lawmakers said and did in the weeks before the insurrection. Members have asked three GOP lawmakers — Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California — to testify voluntarily. All have refused. Other lawmakers could be called in the coming days.
So far, the Jan. 6 committee has refrained from issuing subpoenas to lawmakers, fearing the repercussions of such an extraordinary step. But the lack of cooperation from lawmakers hasn't prevented the panel from obtaining new information about their actions.
The latest court document, submitted in response to a lawsuit from Meadows, contained excerpts from just a handful of the more than 930 interviews the Jan. 6 panel has conducted. It includes information on several high-level meetings nearly a dozen House Republicans attended where Trump's allies flirted with ways to give him another term.
Among the ideas: naming fake slates of electors in seven swing states, declaring martial law and seizing voting machines.
The efforts started in the weeks after The Associated Press declared Biden president-elect.
In early December 2020, several lawmakers attended a meeting in the White House counsel's office where attorneys for the president advised them that a plan to put up an alternate slate of electors declaring Trump the winner was not “legally sound.” One lawmaker, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, pushed back on that position. So did GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Louie Gohmert of Texas, according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former special assistant in the Trump White House.
Despite the warning from the counsel's office, Trump's allies moved forward. On Dec. 14, 2020, as rightly chosen Democratic electors in seven states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — met at their seat of state government to cast their votes, the fake electors gathered as well.
They declared themselves the rightful electors and submitted false Electoral College certificates declaring Trump the true winner of the presidential election in their states.
Those certificates from the “alternate electors” were then sent to Congress, where they were ignored.
The majority of the lawmakers have since denied their involvement in these efforts.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia testified in a hearing in April that she does not recall conversations she had with the White House or the texts she sent to Meadows about Trump invoking martial law.
Gohmert told AP he also does not recall being involved and that he is not sure he could be helpful to the committee’s investigation. Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia played down his actions, saying it is routine for members of the president’s party to be going in and out of the White House to speak about a number of topics. Hice is now running for secretary of state in Georgia, a position responsible for the state's elections.
Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona didn’t deny his public efforts to challenge the election results but called recent reports about his deep involvement untrue.
In a statement Saturday, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona reiterated his “serious” concerns about the 2020 election. “Discussions about the Electoral Count Act were appropriate, necessary and warranted,” he added.
Requests for comment from the other lawmakers were not immediately returned.
Less than a week later after the early December meeting at the White House, another plan emerged. In a meeting with House Freedom Caucus members and Trump White House officials, the discussion turned to the decisive action they believed that Pence could take on Jan. 6.
Those in attendance virtually and in-person, according to committee testimony, were Hice, Biggs, Gosar, Reps. Perry, Gaetz, Jordan, Gohmert, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, and Greene, then a congresswoman-elect.
"What was the conversation like?” the committee asked Hutchinson, who was a frequent presence in the meetings that took place in December 2020 and January 2021.
“They felt that he had the authority to, pardon me if my phrasing isn’t correct on this, but — send votes back to the States or the electors back to the states," Hutchinson said, referring to Pence.
When asked if any of the lawmakers disagreed with the idea that the vice president had such authority, Hutchinson said there was no objection from any of the Republican lawmakers.
In another meeting about Pence's potential role, Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis were joined again by Perry and Jordan as well as Greene and Lauren Boebert, a Republican who had also just been elected to the House from Colorado.
Communication between lawmakers and the White House didn't let up as Jan. 6 drew closer. The day after Christmas, Perry texted Meadows with a countdown.
“11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration," the text read. "We gotta get going!” Perry urged Meadows to call Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who championed Trump's efforts to challenge the election results. Perry has acknowledged introducing Clark to Trump.
Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over his plan to send a letter to Georgia and other battleground states questioning the election results and urging their state legislatures to investigate. It all culminated in a dramatic White House meeting at which Trump considered elevating Clark to attorney general, only to back down after top Justice Department officials made clear they would resign.
Pressure from lawmakers and the White House on the Justice Department is among several areas of inquiry in the Jan. 6 investigation. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the panel from Maryland, has hinted there are more revelations to come.
“As the mob smashed our windows, bloodied our police and stormed the Capitol, Trump and his accomplices plotted to destroy Biden’s majority in the electoral college and overthrow our constitutional order,” Raskin tweeted last week.
When the results of the panel's investigation come out, Raskin predicted, “America will see how the coup and insurrection converged.”
More evidence that blue lives only matter "sometimes".
Former NYPD officer convicted of assaulting police during Jan. 6 Capitol riot
"You f***ing piece of [censored]. You f***ing Commie motherf***ers, man." He then allegedly used the flagpole against the officer, swinging over the police line.
Judge upholds Jan. 6 committee subpoena for RNC records U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly said the select committee had demonstrated its need for the party’s data on its fundraising emails.
A large group of protesters overtake police and barriers at the Capitol Building. A large group of pro-Trump protesters overtake police and barriers on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. | Jon Cherry/Getty Images
By KYLE CHENEY
05/02/2022 06:53 AM EDT
A federal judge late Sunday resoundingly supported the Jan. 6 select committee’s effort to obtain internal Republican National Committee data about efforts to fundraise off claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
In a landmark ruling rejecting an RNC lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly said the select committee had demonstrated its need for the party’s data on its fundraising emails between Nov. 3, 2020, and Jan. 6, 2021 — when the RNC and Trump campaign sent supporters messages falsely suggesting the election was stolen. The committee contends those emails helped sow the seeds of the violence that erupted on Jan. 6.
“[T]he Select Committee seeks reasonably relevant information from a narrow window during which the RNC sent emails promoting claims that the presidential election was fraudulent or stolen,” Kelly, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the 53-page ruling.
Kelly issued an injunction to allow the RNC to appeal his ruling by May 5.
The RNC on Monday morning indicated it will indeed appeal the ruling and claimed a partial victory by forcing the select committee to narrow the terms of its Salesforce subpoena. That narrowing, which came in response to some of the RNC’s sharpest concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, was cited repeatedly by Kelly as a reason to permit the committee to obtain the data.
“While the RNC strongly disagrees with this ruling, our lawsuit compelled Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th committee to dramatically narrow the subpoena’s scope,” chief RNC counsel Matt Raymer said. “
The decision overall is a major victory for the select committee and could open the doors to reams of internal RNC data held by Salesforce, a third-party vendor that the RNC used to run email fundraising campaigns and analyses. The select committee subpoenaed Salesforce for the records in February and the RNC filed suit soon after, seeking to block Salesforce from complying.
In a letter accompanying the subpoena, the select committee noted that Salesforce raised concerns within days of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that some of the fundraising campaigns the RNC and Trump campaign ran through its systems may have played a part in stoking the unrest that led to violence at the Capitol. The select committee is seeking Salesforce records that support the company’s analysis of those fundraising efforts, as well as data about how many RNC supporters viewed those messages and which RNC staffers logged into Salesforce’s system to deliver them.
The RNC argued that a legal victory for the select committee could grant Democrats access to the sensitive secrets of their political rivals, shedding light on internal RNC digital strategies that the party has spent years crafting. That argument was joined by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which submitted its own brief comparing the select committee’s subpoena to Watergate.
But Kelly rejected the notion that sensitive GOP data was at risk, describing it as “speculative” and suggesting any competitive disadvantage that results pales compared to the committee’s legitimate need for the documents at issue.
“Nothing suggests that the Select Committee is demanding, or that Salesforce is preparing to produce, internal RNC memoranda laying out its digital strategy,” Kelly ruled. “Obviously, information that shows which email campaigns attracted more attention, and which attracted less, has some strategic value. But on the record here, whatever competitive harm may come to the RNC from disclosure of the actual material at issue is too ‘logically attenuated’ and ‘speculative’ to defeat the Select Committee’s weighty interest.”
Kelly ruled that the select committee had narrowly tailored its request only to a set of records that would reveal the impact of the RNC’s efforts, alongside Trump, to fundraise off claims the 2020 election was stolen — messaging efforts that the select committee argues played a part in stoking the attack on the Capitol.
“That two-month window is plainly relevant to its investigation into the causes of the January 6 attack,” Kelly wrote.
Kelly also rejected an RNC argument that the select committee’s subpoena to Salesforce lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose” and was really a “law enforcement” effort that Congress was not permitted to pursue.
“The subpoena’s valid legislative purpose is apparent enough to sustain it against this challenge,” he determined.
In his ruling, Kelly swept aside a host of arguments lodged by the RNC against the Jan. 6 select committee, many of which have been made in dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump allies seeking to frustrate the committee’s subpoenas. His ruling could resonate in all of those ongoing legal battles.
For example, Kelly rejected the notion that the committee has been operating improperly because it has no members selected by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy initially recommended five members to the panel, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of them — Reps. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan — contending that they were too closely linked to Trump to be legitimate investigators. In response, McCarthy withdrew all five picks and boycotted the panel.
But Kelly argued that just because Pelosi disagreed with him — and then opted to permit the select committee to operate without its full 13-member contingent — does not make the committee invalid. Rather, Kelly noted that the House had repeatedly voted to accept the select committee’s recommendations to hold various Trump associates in contempt of Congress.
“[T]he House views the Select Committee to be duly constituted and empowered to act … even though the Select Committee has only nine members,” Kelly noted. “This understanding is reflected by the House’s adoption of the Select Committee’s recommendations to find witnesses in contempt of Congress for their refusals to comply with Select Committee subpoenas.”
Kelly also contended that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), one of two Republicans appointed to the committee by Pelosi, can be properly considered the panel’s ranking GOP member. Many McCarthy allies in the House and reluctant witnesses have argued that Cheney can’t be considered the ranking member because she was appointed by Pelosi.
“[T]o the extent there is any uncertainty about whether she fits the bill, on this record the Court must defer to the Select Committee’s decision to treat Representative Cheney as the ranking minority member,” he ruled.
Former Marine who kicked officer on Jan. 6 sentenced to more than 2 years in prison
Kevin Creek apologized in court to officers and his family, saying he intended only to attend President Donald Trump's rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol.
Brooklyn Judge's Son Sentenced to 8 Months in Prison for Role in Capitol Riot
Aaron Mostofsky was sentenced to eight months in jail, followed by 12 months supervised release and 200 hours of community service, U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia.
The son of a New York City judge who referred to himself as a “caveman” eager to protest Donald Trump’s presidential election loss and pleaded guilty to charges he stormed the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, was sentenced Friday to eight months in prison, according to federal prosecutors.
Aaron Mostofsky was seen inside the Capitol wearing a fur costume and a police bulletproof vest that he was accused of stealing during the mayhem. He also gave a video interview inside the building, telling the New York Post he was there “to express my opinion as a free American that this election was stolen.”
Mostofsky, 35, pleaded guilty in February to charges of civil disorder, theft of government property and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.
Federal sentencing guidelines in his case recommended a prison sentence ranging from 10 months to 16 months. Prosecutors recommended a sentence of 15 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
Ultimately, he was sentenced to eight months in jail, followed by 12 months supervised release and 200 hours of community service, U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia. Mostofsky also agreed to pay $2,000 restitution.
Mostofsky’s father is Steven Mostofsky, a state court judge in Brooklyn. A message seeking comment was left with a court spokesperson.
Aaron Mostofsky’s unusual garb made him stand out from the crowd of camouflage-wearing, flag-waving rioters. At one point, he was photographed sitting on a bench near the Senate chamber holding a stick and the riot shield, which he said he picked up off the floor.
According to prosecutors, Mostofsky took a bus from New York to Washington and joined protesters in overwhelming a police line and storming the Capitol. Along the way, he picked up and put on the bullet proof vest, valued at $1,905, and the riot shield, worth $265, prosecutors said.
Before the protest, Mostofsky messaged another demonstrator that he could be found at the protest by looking for “a caveman,” adding, “Even a caveman knows it was stolen,” prosecutors said. Afterward, as his photo circulated, he said the image was unfortunate because “now people actually know me.”
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg told Aaron Mostofsky Friday that he was “literally on the front lines” of the mob’s attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
“What you and others did on that day imposed an indelible stain on how our nation is perceived, both at home and abroad, and that can’t be undone,” the judge told Mostofsky, 35.
Mostofsky had asked the judge for mercy, saying he was ashamed of his “contribution to the chaos of that day.”
“I feel sorry for the officers that had to deal with that chaos,” said Mostofsky, who must report to prison on or after June 5.
Nearly 800 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot in the 15 months following the shocking event, according to federal prosecutors. More than 250 individuals were charged with assaulting or impending law enforcement. More than 200 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors punishable by a maximum of six months imprisonment.
Best hurry up and arrest Trump because he is getting all these Republican Candidates elected.
The people are behind him and voting.
Of course you can't arrest him without facts or proof to use in a court of law where he can defend himself and would have the ability to cross examine.
Keep up the hearings and political witch hunts libs, they make for good tv.
![[Linked Image from gifimage.net]](https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/funny-hillary-clinton-gif-11.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/zRS2gvw.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/5nFShZWwq3fdm/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP8GCYyaUAA6UC7.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media4.giphy.com]](https://media4.giphy.com/media/DpB9NBnxFo8SDzePYic/giphy.gif)