Jan 6 Select Committee

Cropduster-80

Not hearsay and also not corroborated (or contradicted under oath) which isn’t necessarily bad.  More people with the same story would be better though 

I can’t think of how many murder convictions have hinged on a random eye witness seeing something at 50 yards away.  This is much better than that 

mickeyrat

gift article...

https://wapo.st/3abwXYq

Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says

The Republican Party cannot survive with Trump as 2024 presidential nominee, she adds

By Amy B Wang

July 3, 2022 at 2:03 p.m. EDT

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection could make multiple criminal referrals of former president Donald Trump over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the committee’s vice chair, said in an interview that aired Sunday.

“The Justice Department doesn’t have to wait for the committee to make a criminal referral,” Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And there could be more than one criminal referral.”

Cheney emphasized that the committee’s aims were not political, but also that the Justice Department should not refrain from prosecuting Trump out of concerns about political optics if the evidence warrants criminal prosecution.

“I think it’s a much graver constitutional threat if a president can engage in these kinds of activities, and the majority of the president’s party looks away, or we as a country decide we’re not actually going to take our constitutional obligations seriously,” Cheney said.

Cheney went on to express grave concerns about the idea of Trump running as the GOP presidential nominee for a third time.

“I think there’s no question, I mean, a man as dangerous as Donald Trump can absolutely never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again,” Cheney said.

The Republican Party, she said, could not survive if Trump were its 2024 presidential nominee.

“Millions of people, millions of Republicans have been betrayed by Donald Trump. And that is a really painful thing for people to recognize and to admit, but it’s absolutely the case,” Cheney said. “And they’ve been betrayed by him, by ‘the big lie,’ and by what he continues to do and say to tear apart our country and tear apart our party.”

The interview was Cheney’s first since the Jan. 6 committee began holding public hearings, and it was taped days after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, gave bombshell testimony about Trump’s actions — and inaction — on the day of the Capitol attack.

Hutchinson testified last week that Trump knew that some of his supporters were armed but urged them to march on the Capitol anyway, and that he was reportedly indifferent to the mob’s threats to hang Vice President Mike Pence.

“What kind of man knows that a mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the Capitol and further incites that mob when his own vice president is under threat? When the Congress is under threat?” Cheney said. “It’s very chilling.”

Trump and his allies have since sought to discredit Hutchinson, but Cheney said she was “absolutely confident” in the former White House aide’s testimony. Hutchinson also testified last week that Trump was “irate” when he was told he would not be able to travel to the Capitol with his supporters after his speech on the Ellipse, and that she was told Trump lunged at his security detail in anger while inside the presidential limousine.

When asked if the committee had additional evidence to corroborate Hutchinson’s testimony, Cheney said the committee had “significant evidence about a whole range of issues, including the president’s intense anger” inside the presidential limo. Cheney pointedly suggested that anyone who was denying Hutchinson’s version of events testify before the committee under oath as well.

continues....

Lerxst1992

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.

From the Lawfare article above.

In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.” 

Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments 

Merkin Baller

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.

From the Lawfare article above.

In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.” 

Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments 

Since you brought him up... do we know if Meadows refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony? 

As far as I know, he has not. 

Cropduster-80

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Until someone who actually heard trump comment about the mags, it’s hearsay and not evidence to indict. So far, no one has come forward to corroborate.

From the Lawfare article above.

In particular, Hutchinson testified to hearing Trump order that the magnetometers (metal detectors) used to keep armed people away from the president be removed: “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.” 

Thanks, for some reason I thought she was relaying Meadows comments 

Since you brought him up... do we know if Meadows refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony? 

As far as I know, he has not. 

He didn’t get a pardon so I would suspect he is  negotiating an immunity deal with the DOJ. 

I don’t think he has said anything on the record.  If he doesn’t cooperate he’s one I think who could go to jail. 

I would also guess he is the one who witness tampered Hutchinson.  She was his responsibility 

The Juggler

Bentleyspop said:

Traitor...

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1541856003934797827?t=YFvgVfuJ59SOFySqY_DgvQ&s=19

First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.

Halifax2TheMax

The Juggler said:

Bentleyspop said:

Traitor...

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1541856003934797827?t=YFvgVfuJ59SOFySqY_DgvQ&s=19

First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.

Only the best people, folks. Only the best.

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Bentleyspop said:

Traitor...

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1541856003934797827?t=YFvgVfuJ59SOFySqY_DgvQ&s=19

First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.

Only the best people, folks. Only the best.

that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.

that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.

Cropduster-80

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Bentleyspop said:

Traitor...

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1541856003934797827?t=YFvgVfuJ59SOFySqY_DgvQ&s=19

First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.

Only the best people, folks. Only the best.

that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.

that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.

Guy is a total loser.

however I would do the same thing as him in his shoes. If someone else can incriminate him great, pretty much anything he says will incriminate himself.  He is neck deep in the lawlessness 

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Bentleyspop said:

Traitor...

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1541856003934797827?t=YFvgVfuJ59SOFySqY_DgvQ&s=19

First time seeing the video of this. What a piece of poop.

Only the best people, folks. Only the best.

that right there should forego any and all retirement benefits he will receive and I'd push for repayment going back to when he pled guilty for lying to fbi, pardon or not.

that man raised his hand every 4 years swearing to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

everything from obamas term when he fired him for basically insubordination to now is counter to that oath.

He should be court martialed as I believe the pentagon could call him back to active duty and then court martial his ass. As well they should.

Gern Blansten

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/06/1109965552/a-georgia-grand-jury-subpoenas-top-trump-allies-including-giuliani-and-graham

On the news this morning I heard an opinion that this could/will be very bad for tRump. 

Lerxst1992

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

pjhawks

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

mrussel1

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Cropduster-80

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

The Juggler

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

...Justice Dept would take over in that case then?

Cropduster-80

The Juggler said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

...Justice Dept would take over in that case then?

That only works for two years for certain.  At the end of the day that’s probably going to be the issue once we get to the criminal phase.  That’s a ways off and the time it’s going to take doesn’t make me feel hopeful 

mrussel1

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

I'm curious whether he will actually fight it.   I never saw him as a Trump loyalist.   Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him.  The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump.  He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy. 

Cropduster-80

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

I'm curious whether he will actually fight it.   I never saw him as a Trump loyalist.   Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him.  The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump.  He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy. 

My gut says he will play ball. I think Hutchinson made clear where he stood. He isn’t getting a job with anyone connected to trump ever again anyway and yeah, probably doesn’t need to anyway.  

I think he just wanted to keep his head down and move on. Can’t really do that now 

mrussel1

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjhawks said:

Lerxst1992 said:

"Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel to President Donald J. Trump who repeatedly fought Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has reached a deal to be interviewed by Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the inquiry."


Pool time, how often will he say "attorney client privilege?"

I say 76 times

I think I heard or saw somewhere that attorney client privilege does not count for White House Counsel because he is not the personal lawyer of the President

Yes, I agree.  Also, ACP does not stand when speaking about the intent to commit or the continuation of a crime.  It's called the "crime-fraud" exception.  

Not sure it applies anyway as WHC is lawyer to the office of the president not the president personally,

protecting the office would be the priority I assume.  In a perfect world when they aren’t trying to twist the issue into knots it seems simple 

he can also probably run out the clock on this too in court if he wants so any cooperation is probably a win.  I think ultimately he loses on both attorney client privilege and crime fraud but if it takes a year to sort out there will be no committee to hear the testimony 

I'm curious whether he will actually fight it.   I never saw him as a Trump loyalist.   Although I'm sure he is getting phone calls now reminding him how much Trump loves him.  The difference is that he's not a politician so he doesn't need Trump.  He's a partner in a white shoe firm and already wealthy. 

My gut says he will play ball. I think Hutchinson made clear where he stood. He isn’t getting a job with anyone connected to trump ever again anyway and yeah, probably doesn’t need to anyway.  

I think he just wanted to keep his head down and move on. Can’t really do that now 

Totally agree.