Jan 6 Select Committee

Halifax2TheMax

jpgoegel said:

eric holder is all i recall.  it was regarding Fast and Furious but Im not sure if it's equal to this mess

Eric Holder testified for hours before a repub congressional committee. “How’s your asparagus?”

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

jpgoegel said:

eric holder is all i recall.  it was regarding Fast and Furious but Im not sure if it's equal to this mess

Eric Holder testified for hours before a repub congressional committee. “How’s your asparagus?”

but he balked at certain questions

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

jpgoegel said:

eric holder is all i recall.  it was regarding Fast and Furious but Im not sure if it's equal to this mess

Eric Holder testified for hours before a repub congressional committee. “How’s your asparagus?”

but he balked at certain questions

That’s a different matter than refusing to cooperate or even show up. There are lots of reasons heads of agencies may not answer certain questions in a public hearing, not all of them nefarious. Did he take the 5th?

mickeyrat

 https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-congress-donald-trump-30d5d01db49f0591d641d9e92d4092a8

Supreme Court allows Jan. 6 committee to get Trump documents

By MARK SHERMAN

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a rebuff to former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court is allowing the release of presidential documents sought by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The justices on Wednesday rejected a bid by Trump to withhold the documents from the committee until the issue is finally resolved by the courts. Trump's lawyers had hoped to prolong the court fight and keep the documents on hold.

Following the high court's action, there is no legal impediment to turning over the documents, which are held by the National Archives and Records Administration. They include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes dealing with Jan. 6 from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

The House committee agreed to defer its attempt to get some documents, at the request of the Biden White House. The current administration was concerned that releasing all of the Trump administration documents sought by the committee could compromise national security and executive privilege.

Alone among the justices, Clarence Thomas said he would have granted Trump’s request to keep the documents on hold.

Trump’s attorneys had asked the high court to reverse rulings by the federal appeals court in Washington and block the release of the records even after President Joe Biden waived executive privilege over them.

In an unsigned opinion, the court acknowledged there are “serious and substantial concerns” over whether a former president can win a court order to prevent disclosure of certain records from his time in office in a situation like this one.

But the court noted that the appeals court determined that Trump's assertion of privilege over the documents would fail under any circumstances, “even if he were the incumbent."

It said the issue of a former president's ability to claim executive privilege would have to wait for another day.

The court took issue with the conclusion of the appeals court that downplayed a former president's interests, suggesting that the current president could in essence ignore his predecessor's claims.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush, wrote separately to argue that “a former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.”

But Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, did not object to the outcome Wednesday.

Before and after the riot, Trump promoted false theories about election fraud and suggested the “real insurrection” was on Election Day, when he lost to Biden.

Repeating arguments they made before lower courts, Trump’s attorneys had urged the justices to step in, arguing that the case concerned all future occupants of the White House. Former presidents had “a clear right to protect their confidential records from premature dissemination,” Trump’s lawyers said.

“Congress cannot engage in meandering fishing expeditions in the hopes of embarrassing President Trump or exposing the President’s and his staff’s sensitive and privileged communications ‘for the sake of exposure,’” they added.

But the House committee responded in its high court brief that although the facts of the case are “unprecedented,” the decision was “not a difficult one.”

There was no explanation for the timing of the court's action. But the National Archives told the appeals court and Trump's lawyers that it would turn over some documents it asserted were not part of the court case on Wednesday absent a new court order.

continues.....

mrussel1

Another tough break.  He deserves so much better. 

The Juggler

Trump seems to pay a lot of lawyers a lot of money to lose a lot of cases....well, I guess he doesn't pay all of them. 

gimmesometruth27

The Juggler said:

Trump seems to pay a lot of lawyers a lot of money to lose a lot of cases....well, I guess he doesn't pay all of them. 

either his lawyers suck at everything, or he is impossible to defend. nobody loses this many court decisions.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1484157520704909319

She said to search the secret service logs for plans that tRump might have had to lead a march to the capitol himself....

OnWis97

The Juggler said:

Trump seems to pay a lot of lawyers a lot of money to lose a lot of cases....well, I guess he doesn't pay all of them. 

I really don't think good lawyers want to take him on as a client. You either have to be desperate for work or a total devotee...neither of which is a great sign.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1484214015119216643

HughFreakingDillon

voluntary testimony. yeah, sure. lol

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

voluntary testimony. yeah, sure. lol

It's just the first step. Once she declines, she'll be subpoenaed. 

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

voluntary testimony. yeah, sure. lol

It's just the first step. Once she declines, she'll be subpoenaed. 

really? I didn't realize they did the "soft approach" first. 

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

voluntary testimony. yeah, sure. lol

It's just the first step. Once she declines, she'll be subpoenaed. 

really? I didn't realize they did the "soft approach" first. 

I'm not 100% positive, but I thought we had seen this pattern in the past with other persons of interest - first, it's an invitation to share what they know, then it's a subpoena if they don't come willingly.

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

voluntary testimony. yeah, sure. lol

It's just the first step. Once she declines, she'll be subpoenaed. 

really? I didn't realize they did the "soft approach" first. 

I'm not 100% positive, but I thought we had seen this pattern in the past with other persons of interest - first, it's an invitation to share what they know, then it's a subpoena if they don't come willingly.

yes it's a courtesy...if they turn it down then it becomes formal

tempo_n_groove

Just got a buzzz that Ivanka Trump has been asked to cooperate in the investigation.

Bentleyspop

gimmesometruth27 said:

The Juggler said:

Trump seems to pay a lot of lawyers a lot of money to lose a lot of cases....well, I guess he doesn't pay all of them. 

either his lawyers suck at everything, or he is impossible to defend. nobody loses this many court decisions.

He's the kind of "successful " businessman who pays is lawyers 1 million dollars to fight a $100,000 lawsuit to settle it for $25,000

Halifax2TheMax

Hey but the guns weren’t used so it’s not an insurrection or an attempted coup.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/prosecutors-reveal-details-alleged-jan-plotting-oath-keepers/story?id=82347130

mickeyrat

  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/read-the-never-issued-trump-order-that-would-have-seized-voting-machines-527572

Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines

The Jan. 6 select panel has obtained the draft order and a document titled 'Remarks on National Healing.' Both are reported here in detail for the first time.

Former President Donald Trump attends a border security briefing June 30, 2021 in Weslaco, Texas.

By Betsy Woodruff SwanJanuary 21, 2022

Updated: 01/21/2022 03:24 PM EST

Among the records that Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to shield from Jan. 6 investigators are a draft executive order that would have directed the defense secretary to seize voting machines and a document titled “Remarks on National Healing.”

POLITICO has reviewed both documents. The text of the draft executive order is published here for the first time.

continues.. 

mickeyrat

Jan. 6 committee has spoken with former Trump attorney general Barr, chairman says   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/23/january-6-committee-barr/ 

  Jan. 6 committee has spoken with former Trump attorney general Barr, chairman says

By Amy B Wang and Tom Hamburger
January 23 at 3:53 PM EST
Former attorney general William P. Barr has spoken with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, the committee chairman said Sunday, a further indication that several former Trump administration officials are cooperating with the panel even as others are fighting efforts to compel their testimony.
“We’ve had conversations with the former attorney general already. We have talked to Department of Defense individuals,” Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
The bipartisan House panel is investigating the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob trying to stop the confirmation of Joe Biden’s electoral college win, an attack that resulted in the deaths of one police officer and four others and injured about 140 members of law enforcement.
It is unclear what has been discussed between the committee and Barr, who stepped down as attorney general in the weeks before Jan. 6, 2021. Barr had been closely allied with Trump through most of his tenure at the Department of Justice but resigned in December 2020 after publicly disputing claims of widespread election fraud.
Thompson was asked Sunday if he intended to ask Barr about a draft of a Trump executive order, first reported by Politico last week, that would have directed the defense secretary to seize voting machines in battleground states. Thompson said he did, though he acknowledged the plan was only in draft form and never became operational.