Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Oath Keepers, Proud Boys subpoenaed by Jan. 6 House panel
By FARNOUSH AMIRI
42 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection issued more subpoenas Tuesday, this time to extremist organizations, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers as well as their leaders, in an attempt to uncover the plotting and execution of the deadly attack.
“The Select Committee is seeking information from individuals and organizations reportedly involved with planning the attack, with the violent mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th, or with efforts to overturn the results of the election," Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the panel, said in a statement.
The subpoenas are the latest in a wide net the House panel has cast in an effort to investigate the riot, when supporters of former President Donald Trump, fueled by his false claims of a stolen election, brutally assaulted police and smashed their way into the Capitol to interrupt the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.
The committee has already interviewed more than 150 people across government, social media and law enforcement, including some former Trump aides who have been cooperative. The panel has subpoenaed more than 20 witnesses, and most of them, including several who helped plan the “Stop the Steal” rally the morning of Jan. 6, have signaled they will cooperate.
The subpoenas were issued to members of the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and 1st Amendment Praetorian, including Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, for documents and testimony.
Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, hasn’t been charged in the riot as he wasn’t there on Jan. 6. He’d been arrested in an unrelated vandalism case as he arrived in Washington two days earlier and was ordered out of the area by a judge. Law enforcement later said Tarrio was picked up in part to help quell potential violence.
But despite him not being physically present, the committee believes he may have been involved in the Proud Boys’ preparation for the events at the Capitol.
More than 30 Proud Boys leaders, members or associates are among those who have been charged in connection with the attack. The group of self-described “Western chauvinists” emerged from far-right fringes during the Trump administration to join mainstream GOP circles, with allies like longtime Trump backer Roger Stone. The group claims it has more than 30,000 members nationwide.
The committee on Tuesday also subpoenaed the Oath Keepers — a militia group founded in 2009 that recruits current and former military, police and first responders — and its founder and leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes. The panel says Rhodes may have suggested members should engage in violence to ensure their preferred election outcome and that he was in contact with several of the more than a dozen indicted Oath Keepers members before, during and after the Capitol attack, including meeting some of them outside the Capitol.
Rhodes has said there were as many as 40,000 Oath Keepers at its peak, but one extremism expert estimates the group’s membership stands around 3,000 nationally.
The last organization on the committee’s list Tuesday was the 1st Amendment Praetorian, founded by a QAnon believer, that claims to provide free security for “patriotic and religious events across the country.”
Its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, is wanted by the committee after being listed as a speaker on the permit for a Jan. 5 rally on Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington. On the day of the attack, Lewis tweeted: “Today is the day that true battles begin.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Today at 12:28 p.m. EST|Updated today at 1:11 p.m. EST
Mark
Meadows, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the
Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, is cooperating with the House committee
investigating the pro-Trump insurrection, the committee’s chairman, Rep.
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), said Tuesday.
“Mr.
Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his
attorney,” Thompson said in a statement. “He has produced records to the
committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition.”
Meadows
is the highest-profile member of Trump’s inner circle who is known to
be cooperating or who the committee has publicly acknowledged is
cooperating. Committee members have previously said many people with
connections to the events of that day have voluntarily engaged with
investigators, but they have not specified who those individuals are or
how high up they were in the Trump administration.
The
House select committee investigating the attempted insurrection at the
Capitol on Jan. 6 faces an uphill battle with former Trump
administration officials. (Blair Guild/The Washington Post)
Thompson,
in his statement, said that the committee “expects all witnesses,
including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the
Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive.”
“The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition,” Thompson concluded.
CNN first reported Meadows’s cooperation.
Details
of the deal Meadows struck with the committee were not made public.
While Meadows has now produced records for the committee and will sit
before it, he could still try to claim executive privilege to protect
certain pieces of information, making the cooperation fragile.
In
a statement, Meadows’s lawyer, George Terwilliger III, told The
Washington Post that Meadows and his team “continue to work with the
Select Committee and its staff to see if we can reach an accommodation
that does not require Mr. Meadows to waive Executive Privilege or to
forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot
be compelled to testify before Congress.”
“We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” Terwilliger said.
The
bipartisan committee is investigating the attack on the Capitol by a
pro-Trump mob determined to stop the affirmation of Joe Biden’s
presidential win. The riot left five people dead and injured some 140
members of law enforcement who faced a barrage of sticks, bear spray,
flagpoles and other items used as weapons.
Earlier this month, White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su sent a letter to
Terwilliger notifying him that President Biden will not assert
executive privilege or immunity over the documents and deposition
requested by the committee related to his client.
As
Thompson issued his statement on Meadows, federal judges were
questioning whether Trump has the power to go to court to keep White
House documents secret from the congressional committee. A three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit expressed
skepticism about the role of the courts in settling disputes between a
former president and the sitting president over the release of White
House records.
Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee
at the end of September and has been “engaged” with investigators to
negotiate the terms of his deposition and the turning over of documents.
The pace of these discussions, however, caused the committee to weigh
more aggressive measures against him.
On
Twitter, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the committee,
said Meadows “has a legal and moral obligation to cooperate with our
committee.”
“I’m
glad he has now agreed to appear and has already provided documents,”
Schiff said. “We will evaluate the extent of his compliance after his
testimony. We must reveal the full truth of what led to January 6.”
The news on Meadows’scooperation dealcomes a day after the select committee announced
that it will move to hold Jeffrey Clark, a top official in the Trump
Justice Department, in criminal contempt for not complying with its
subpoena. A committee vote is expected Wednesday. Meadows’s decision to
cooperate could spare him the same treatment.
Stephen
K. Bannon, a former Trump adviser, was indicted by a federal grand jury
on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a congressional
subpoena.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Meadows is a Trump loyalist though, no? They "negotiated" what documents he will give to them. I'm sure he will give them nothing and will claim executive privilege on the good stuff.
Hopefully they crack open one egg sooner or later and get some good information.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
What laws could stop another 1/6 if the existing laws didnt? It's like our gun problem...more laws aren't going to solve anything. We need a societal shift of some kind.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
What laws could stop another 1/6 if the existing laws didnt? It's like our gun problem...more laws aren't going to solve anything. We need a societal shift of some kind.
I can't say I'm enough of an expert to know at this point, since we don't know what the core issue. However, the Election law of 1877 could make 'more' clear that the VP has no power to reject any certified electors. We could also clarify which electors would be accepted by the Congress, in the event that more than one set is submitted. This was the crux of the plan by the most diabolical of his minions; to have the VP reject the certified electors and accept other ones. And/or for the VP to reject them and immediately throw the election to the House. Congress can absolutely close holes left in the amendments or existing laws so long as they don't specifically run against an amendment or the original document.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
What laws could stop another 1/6 if the existing laws didnt? It's like our gun problem...more laws aren't going to solve anything. We need a societal shift of some kind.
I can't say I'm enough of an expert to know at this point, since we don't know what the core issue. However, the Election law of 1877 could make 'more' clear that the VP has no power to reject any certified electors. We could also clarify which electors would be accepted by the Congress, in the event that more than one set is submitted. This was the crux of the plan by the most diabolical of his minions; to have the VP reject the certified electors and accept other ones. And/or for the VP to reject them and immediately throw the election to the House. Congress can absolutely close holes left in the amendments or existing laws so long as they don't specifically run against an amendment or the original document.
I thought we were talking about preventing the breaking into the capital aspect. From a procedural standpoint what you presented makes perfect sense. From an inflamed mob of people that will not stop at anything to get their guy in the white house even if it means overthrowing the government, not so much.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
What laws could stop another 1/6 if the existing laws didnt? It's like our gun problem...more laws aren't going to solve anything. We need a societal shift of some kind.
I can't say I'm enough of an expert to know at this point, since we don't know what the core issue. However, the Election law of 1877 could make 'more' clear that the VP has no power to reject any certified electors. We could also clarify which electors would be accepted by the Congress, in the event that more than one set is submitted. This was the crux of the plan by the most diabolical of his minions; to have the VP reject the certified electors and accept other ones. And/or for the VP to reject them and immediately throw the election to the House. Congress can absolutely close holes left in the amendments or existing laws so long as they don't specifically run against an amendment or the original document.
I thought we were talking about preventing the breaking into the capital aspect. From a procedural standpoint what you presented makes perfect sense. From an inflamed mob of people that will not stop at anything to get their guy in the white house even if it means overthrowing the government, not so much.
Right, you can't legislate away a mob. However, you can close some loops. Trump's strategy was two fold, incite the mob and have a plausibly legitimate way to retain power. The committee has an important duty to close out any laws that could subvert our democracy.
It doesn't matter how many eggs are cracked open, nothing will come of this whole fucking thing.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
The point of of the committee is to create new laws to attempt to prevent such an issue from arising again. If there was no desired legislative outcome, then congress loses its interest and therefore cannot enforce a subpoena.
What laws could stop another 1/6 if the existing laws didnt? It's like our gun problem...more laws aren't going to solve anything. We need a societal shift of some kind.
I can't say I'm enough of an expert to know at this point, since we don't know what the core issue. However, the Election law of 1877 could make 'more' clear that the VP has no power to reject any certified electors. We could also clarify which electors would be accepted by the Congress, in the event that more than one set is submitted. This was the crux of the plan by the most diabolical of his minions; to have the VP reject the certified electors and accept other ones. And/or for the VP to reject them and immediately throw the election to the House. Congress can absolutely close holes left in the amendments or existing laws so long as they don't specifically run against an amendment or the original document.
I thought we were talking about preventing the breaking into the capital aspect. From a procedural standpoint what you presented makes perfect sense. From an inflamed mob of people that will not stop at anything to get their guy in the white house even if it means overthrowing the government, not so much.
Right, you can't legislate away a mob. However, you can close some loops. Trump's strategy was two fold, incite the mob and have a plausibly legitimate way to retain power. The committee has an important duty to close out any laws that could subvert our democracy.
Well lets hope they can get that done before the mid terms.
News organizations join Bannon’s battle to get Jan. 6 prosecution documents By Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi December 01 at 6:04 PM EST A coalition of news organizations, including The Washington Post, has sided with former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon in asking a federal court to release documents that are part of Bannon’s prosecution for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 congressional committee. Bannon is fighting a proposal by prosecutors to keep the documents under wraps — including more than 1,000 pages of witness testimony, grand-jury proceedings and other information generated as part of the discovery process in the prosecution of Bannon for alleged contempt of Congress. Journalists would not be able to see the documents if the Justice Department prevails in persuading a judge to impose a protective order. The legal brief submitted by The Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News and others creates strange bedfellows. It aligns some of the biggest news organizations with one of their harshest critics. Bannon, who was chief executive of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and briefly Trump’s chief White House strategist, often amplified Trump’s criticism and contempt of the news media. At one point during his brief tenure at the White House, he called the media “the opposition party” and said it “should keep its mouth shut.” He pleaded not guilty last month to two counts of contempt of Congress. The charges stemmed from his refusal to testify and to turn over material subpoenaed by the Democratic-led House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building. The government contends that public access to the documents would result in publicity that could taint the jury selection process and result in witness intimidation before the trial begins. Prosecutors have argued in a brief that Bannon’s public statements “make clear that defense’s real purpose [is] to abuse criminal discovery to try this case in the media rather than in court.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
News organizations join Bannon’s battle to get Jan. 6 prosecution documents By Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi December 01 at 6:04 PM EST A coalition of news organizations, including The Washington Post, has sided with former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon in asking a federal court to release documents that are part of Bannon’s prosecution for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 congressional committee. Bannon is fighting a proposal by prosecutors to keep the documents under wraps — including more than 1,000 pages of witness testimony, grand-jury proceedings and other information generated as part of the discovery process in the prosecution of Bannon for alleged contempt of Congress. Journalists would not be able to see the documents if the Justice Department prevails in persuading a judge to impose a protective order. The legal brief submitted by The Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News and others creates strange bedfellows. It aligns some of the biggest news organizations with one of their harshest critics. Bannon, who was chief executive of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and briefly Trump’s chief White House strategist, often amplified Trump’s criticism and contempt of the news media. At one point during his brief tenure at the White House, he called the media “the opposition party” and said it “should keep its mouth shut.” He pleaded not guilty last month to two counts of contempt of Congress. The charges stemmed from his refusal to testify and to turn over material subpoenaed by the Democratic-led House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building. The government contends that public access to the documents would result in publicity that could taint the jury selection process and result in witness intimidation before the trial begins. Prosecutors have argued in a brief that Bannon’s public statements “make clear that defense’s real purpose [is] to abuse criminal discovery to try this case in the media rather than in court.”
continues
Yeah of course... they want stories. But Justice is right. Bannon wants to try this in the media, using his right wing channels to spread lies and disinformation. Typical.
News organizations join Bannon’s battle to get Jan. 6 prosecution documents By Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi December 01 at 6:04 PM EST A coalition of news organizations, including The Washington Post, has sided with former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon in asking a federal court to release documents that are part of Bannon’s prosecution for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 congressional committee. Bannon is fighting a proposal by prosecutors to keep the documents under wraps — including more than 1,000 pages of witness testimony, grand-jury proceedings and other information generated as part of the discovery process in the prosecution of Bannon for alleged contempt of Congress. Journalists would not be able to see the documents if the Justice Department prevails in persuading a judge to impose a protective order. The legal brief submitted by The Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News and others creates strange bedfellows. It aligns some of the biggest news organizations with one of their harshest critics. Bannon, who was chief executive of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and briefly Trump’s chief White House strategist, often amplified Trump’s criticism and contempt of the news media. At one point during his brief tenure at the White House, he called the media “the opposition party” and said it “should keep its mouth shut.” He pleaded not guilty last month to two counts of contempt of Congress. The charges stemmed from his refusal to testify and to turn over material subpoenaed by the Democratic-led House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building. The government contends that public access to the documents would result in publicity that could taint the jury selection process and result in witness intimidation before the trial begins. Prosecutors have argued in a brief that Bannon’s public statements “make clear that defense’s real purpose [is] to abuse criminal discovery to try this case in the media rather than in court.”
continues
Yeah of course... they want stories. But Justice is right. Bannon wants to try this in the media, using his right wing channels to spread lies and disinformation. Typical.
And pollute the potential jury pool. His whole trial and preliminary court hearings should be under a gag rule.
Attorney says Meadows won't cooperate with Jan. 6 panel
By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — In an abrupt reversal, an attorney for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said his client will not cooperate with a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, citing a breakdown in negotiations with the panel.
Attorney George Terwilliger said in a letter Tuesday that a deposition would be “untenable” because the Jan. 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that former President Donald Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege. Terwilliger also said that he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information.
Terwilliger said in a statement last week that he was continuing to work with the committee and its staff on a potential accommodation that would not require Meadows to waive the executive privileges claimed by Trump or “forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify” before Congress.
“We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” he said then.
A spokesperson for the panel did not have immediate comment on Terwilliger’s letter. The committee’s chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, said last week that Meadows had been engaging with the panel through his attorney, producing records and agreeing to appear for an initial deposition.
Thompson said the committee would “continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.” He has said that any witnesses who don’t comply will be held in contempt of Congress.
In halting cooperation, Terwilliger also cited comments from Thompson that he said unfairly cast aspersions on witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A separate witness, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, has said he will invoke those Fifth Amendment rights.
“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.
The reversal comes as Meadows has been receiving attention for a new book, released Tuesday, which revealed that Trump received a positive COVID-19 test before a presidential debate and was far sicker than the White House revealed at the time.
Trump — who told his supporters to “fight like hell” before hundreds of his supporters broke into the Capitol and stopped the presidential electoral count — has attempted to hinder much of the committee’s work, including in an ongoing court case, by arguing that Congress cannot obtain information about his private White House conversations.
___
Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Trump White House records can be released in Jan. 6 probe pending Supreme Court review, appeals court rules
By Spencer S. Hsu December 09 at 4:47 PM EST A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected former president Donald Trump’s bid to keep his White House documents secret from a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, potentially setting up an emergency review by the Supreme Court. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court’s opinion, which said that in a dispute between a current and past president over whether to release White House records, the sitting president must prevail. Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins and Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the National Archives and Records Administration from releasing the first roughly 800 pages of disputed Trump papers after President Biden declined to assert executive privilege as requested by his predecessor, setting up the first of its kind constitutional controversy. The court stayed the opinion 14 days for Trump’s legal team to appeal to the Supreme Court, as they requested at a Nov. 30 hearing in case of adverse ruling. “Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have ‘[a] Republic’—'if [we] can keep it.'” The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted,” Millett wrote a unanimous 68-page-opinion. “In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden’s assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Jan. 6 panel votes for contempt charges against Mark Meadows
By MARY CLARE JALONICK and FARNOUSH AMIRI
35 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted Monday to recommend contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows as lawmakers revealed a series of frantic texts he received as the attack was underway.
The texts, provided by Meadows before he ceased cooperating with the committee, revealed that members of Congress, Fox News anchors and even President Donald Trump’s own son were urging Meadows to push Trump to act quickly to stop the siege by his supporters.
“We need an Oval address," Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows as his father's supporters were breaking into the Capitol, sending lawmakers running for their lives and interrupting the certification of President Joe Biden's victory. "He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”
Trump Jr. added, "He’s got to condemn this s—- ASAP."
Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the panel's vice chairwoman, detailed the texts obtained by the committee as the panel voted to recommend the contempt charges against Meadows, who did not show up for a deposition last week after his lawyer said he would stop cooperating.
The panel voted 9-0 to recommend the contempt charges. The House is expected to vote Tuesday to refer the charges to the Justice Department, which will decide whether to prosecute the former Republican congressman.
Cheney said the texts show Trump's “supreme dereliction” as he refused to strongly condemn the violence of his supporters, and also raise questions about whether he sought to obstruct the congressional certification through inaction.
“These texts leave no doubt,” Cheney said. “The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol.”
The vote comes as the panel has already interviewed more than 300 witnesses, and subpoenaed more than 40 people, as it seeks to create the most comprehensive record yet of the lead-up to the insurrection and of the violent siege itself. The committee's leaders have vowed to punish anyone who doesn't comply, and the Justice Department has already indicted longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon after he defied his subpoena this fall.
“Whatever legacy he thought he left in the House, this is his legacy now,” committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said of Meadows ahead of the vote. “His former colleagues singling him out for criminal prosecution because he wouldn’t answer questions about what he knows about a brutal attack on our democracy. That’s his legacy.”
In a Monday letter to Thompson, Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger said the contempt vote would be “unjust” because Meadows was one of Trump’s top aides and all presidents should be afforded executive privilege to shield their private conversations. Meadows himself sued the panel, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”
Terwilliger noted that the contempt statute has been used infrequently over time and argued that a contempt referral of a senior presidential aide “would do great damage to the institution of the Presidency.”
The committee has gradually teased a handful of the emails and texts Meadows had provided to the committee before he ended his cooperation — including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages. The panel has not released any of the communications in full.
On Monday, Cheney read the texts from Trump Jr. and a series of Fox News hosts as those in Trump’s inner circle attempted to reach the president through his chief of staff, imploring him to take action against the violence that was taking place outside and inside the Capitol.
“Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home ... this is hurting all of us ... he is destroying his legacy,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham texted Meadows, according to the committee.
“Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished,” Brian Kilmeade wrote.
In response to one text from Trump Jr., Meadows texted: “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.”
Cheney also detailed texts that she said were from members of Congress and others in the Capitol.
“Hey, Mark, protestors are literally storming the Capitol,” read one text. "Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?”
Another appeared to come from a member in the House chamber. “There’s an armed standoff at the House Chamber door,” the text read, according to the panel.
If Meadows had appeared for his deposition, lawmakers had planned to ask him about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in the weeks before the insurrection, including his outreach to states and his communications with members of Congress.
Trump’s former top White House aide “is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump’s reelection campaign,” the panel said in a 51-page report released Sunday evening.
As part of its list of questions for Meadows, the panel says it wanted to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters beat police guarding the Capitol building.
The documents provided by Meadows include an email he sent to an unidentified person saying that the Guard would be present to “protect pro Trump people," the panel said, and that more would be available on standby. The committee did not release any additional details about the email.
In a transcript of the deposition Meadows skipped, committee staff said they would have interviewed Meadows about emails “to leadership at the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud,” even though election officials and courts across the country had rejected those claims.
In a text exchange with an unidentified senator, the committee said, Meadows said Trump believed Vice President Mike Pence had power to reject electors in his role presiding over the Jan. 6 certification.
Pence did not have that power under the law, as the vice president’s function is largely ceremonial.
___
Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Tell them the election was stolen and ask for money.
no lies detected!!
Agreed.
Last night's developments were interesting to say the least. It won't mean much to the 'fake news' or 'both sides' crowd, but interesting none the less.
Tell them the election was stolen and ask for money.
no lies detected!!
Agreed.
Last night's developments were interesting to say the least. It won't mean much to the 'fake news' or 'both sides' crowd, but interesting none the less.
names yet to be named but known. Who, when, what was said...........
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It gives the right wingnuts, particularly faux news personalities, plausible deniability in that they can claim, “see?, we tried to stop it.” Rupert Murdoch should be deported, stripped of his US citizenship and Faux should lose their FCC broadcast license. But it won’t happen.
It gives the right wingnuts, particularly faux news personalities, plausible deniability in that they can claim, “see?, we tried to stop it.” Rupert Murdoch should be deported, stripped of his US citizenship and Faux should lose their FCC broadcast license. But it won’t happen.
They aren't fooling us, that's for sure. And where are these people that "tried" to stop it now? Poof!
This is a good warning of things possibly to come. OP ed, not news, but definitely unsettling:
Even as the mob ran
screaming and smashing through the capitol on 6 January , it was clear
this was a coup attempt. It was equally clear that it had been
instigated by the then president and his circle, much of whose audience
in the “stop the steal” rally would become that mob. Everything since
has been fill-in, important in building the legal case against the
leaders of this attempted coup and establishing the facts for history
and public knowledge – and, one hopes, for efforts to prevent another
such attempt.
That the goal was a coup
is a solemnly horrifying fact. That those who orchestrated it and those
who have excused and dismissed it afterward continue to conspire against
the rule of law and the right of the people to choose their leaders is
another such fact. Documents such as the Powerpoint presentation turned
over to the 6 January commission by Trump’s then chief of staff Mark
Meadows confirm the details and build our understanding of the threat.
On the basis of sometimes ridiculous pretexts, the circle around Trump
intended to steal the election and seize power. Many, including Utah
senator Mike Lee and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, reportedly knew the agenda.
Had they succeeded in grabbing power with such an
openly lawless act, they could have kept it only by suspending the rule
of law. This is what a dictatorship is, and this is what they wanted: a
government in which laws are nothing and the ruling junta or thug is
everything. What the American people and foreign nations would have done
in response might have overturned it further down the road, had it not
failed that day, but the whole business is still terrifying, and the
threat is not over.
It was clear the military leadership was already alarmed: on 3 January , all 10 living secretaries of defense coauthored an editorial
declaring, “Efforts to involve the US armed forces in resolving
election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and
unconstitutional territory.”
That few
Republicans would defend the US constitution, the voice of the voters
and the orderly transition of power was also obvious. At 1.09pm that
day, the Capitol police chief said he wanted to declare an emergency and
call in the National Guard. At 1.11pm, Trump ended his speech with the
words “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country
anymore…” At 1.12pm, two of America’s slimiest elected officials,
Congressman Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz, were objecting to
certifying Arizona’s electoral votes. Gosar, according to two participants in the riot,
seemed to know what was coming and had promised “blanket pardons”. The
evacuation of the House and Senate would begin an hour later. At 2.24,
Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should
have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…”
Two
conservative Republicans, Vice-President Mike Pence and Congresswoman
Liz Cheney, have been among the few to refuse to participate in the
coup, the big lie and the surrounding corruption, and have paid for it.
That terrible day, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly
called Trump to rage and curse at him and demand he call the mob off,
but he would then fall in line and fudge the reality and significance of
what happened. That day, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell noted
that to overturn the election results would send democracy into a “death
spiral”. Afterward he was furious and shaken, but he too squirmed his way back into alignment with the big lie. By May he was trying to block the formation of the 6 January committee to investigate what had happened.
The
crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt almost a year ago, but
that the Republican party has itself become so venal, so corrupt, so
ruthless in its quest for power, that it seems assured that we will see
further attempts to overrule any election outcomes they don’t like.
Already the kind of election laws
they’ve pushed across the country seem aimed at such goals, and voter
suppression has long been one of their anti-democratic tactics (it
played a substantial role in Trump’s 2016 win, and the genuine illegitimacies of that election – foreign interference, anomalies the recount might have uncovered had the Republicans not stopped it – were appropriated as false claims for 2020).
The Republicans
made a devil’s bargain decades ago, when they decided that they would
not change course to win the votes of an increasingly nonwhite,
increasingly progressive people, but would try to suppress those who
would vote against them. That is, they pitted themselves against
democracy as participatory government and free and fair elections. The
rhetoric of the far right makes it clear they are fearful and know their
power will ebb if they cannot command and subvert the laws and
elections of this nation, and they are aiming at some form of minority
rule.
That’s perfectly clear from their attack
on the constitutional process unfolding that afternoon of 6 January,
which was itself a refusal to accept a loss. The refusal to recognize
the authority of Congress by Trump associates, including Steve Bannon
and Mark Meadows, is a further sign of their belief, emboldened by
Trump’s four years of criming in public, that they make their own rules.
Both have been found in contempt of Congress.
The
crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt and have a political party
that has gone rogue, but that much of the rest of the nation seems to
be normalizing or forgetting or sleepwalking through the crisis. The
warnings are getting more urgent.
“They’ve
decided to burn it all down with us inside,” said NBC anchor Brian
Williams on Thursday, in his parting words before leaving the network.
Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii stated
Sunday: “The road to autocracy is paved with overly chill responses
from people who would see this all with great clarity if only it were
happening in a faraway place.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared,
“This is nation-ending stuff we’re dealing with here and folks better
wake up soon. I’ll do my part. Think about what yours is.”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It gives the right wingnuts, particularly faux news personalities, plausible deniability in that they can claim, “see?, we tried to stop it.” Rupert Murdoch should be deported, stripped of his US citizenship and Faux should lose their FCC broadcast license. But it won’t happen.
They aren't fooling us, that's for sure. And where are these people that "tried" to stop it now? Poof!
This is a good warning of things possibly to come. OP ed, not news, but definitely unsettling:
Even as the mob ran
screaming and smashing through the capitol on 6 January , it was clear
this was a coup attempt. It was equally clear that it had been
instigated by the then president and his circle, much of whose audience
in the “stop the steal” rally would become that mob. Everything since
has been fill-in, important in building the legal case against the
leaders of this attempted coup and establishing the facts for history
and public knowledge – and, one hopes, for efforts to prevent another
such attempt.
That the goal was a coup
is a solemnly horrifying fact. That those who orchestrated it and those
who have excused and dismissed it afterward continue to conspire against
the rule of law and the right of the people to choose their leaders is
another such fact. Documents such as the Powerpoint presentation turned
over to the 6 January commission by Trump’s then chief of staff Mark
Meadows confirm the details and build our understanding of the threat.
On the basis of sometimes ridiculous pretexts, the circle around Trump
intended to steal the election and seize power. Many, including Utah
senator Mike Lee and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, reportedly knew the agenda.
Had they succeeded in grabbing power with such an
openly lawless act, they could have kept it only by suspending the rule
of law. This is what a dictatorship is, and this is what they wanted: a
government in which laws are nothing and the ruling junta or thug is
everything. What the American people and foreign nations would have done
in response might have overturned it further down the road, had it not
failed that day, but the whole business is still terrifying, and the
threat is not over.
It was clear the military leadership was already alarmed: on 3 January , all 10 living secretaries of defense coauthored an editorial
declaring, “Efforts to involve the US armed forces in resolving
election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and
unconstitutional territory.”
That few
Republicans would defend the US constitution, the voice of the voters
and the orderly transition of power was also obvious. At 1.09pm that
day, the Capitol police chief said he wanted to declare an emergency and
call in the National Guard. At 1.11pm, Trump ended his speech with the
words “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country
anymore…” At 1.12pm, two of America’s slimiest elected officials,
Congressman Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz, were objecting to
certifying Arizona’s electoral votes. Gosar, according to two participants in the riot,
seemed to know what was coming and had promised “blanket pardons”. The
evacuation of the House and Senate would begin an hour later. At 2.24,
Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should
have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…”
Two
conservative Republicans, Vice-President Mike Pence and Congresswoman
Liz Cheney, have been among the few to refuse to participate in the
coup, the big lie and the surrounding corruption, and have paid for it.
That terrible day, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly
called Trump to rage and curse at him and demand he call the mob off,
but he would then fall in line and fudge the reality and significance of
what happened. That day, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell noted
that to overturn the election results would send democracy into a “death
spiral”. Afterward he was furious and shaken, but he too squirmed his way back into alignment with the big lie. By May he was trying to block the formation of the 6 January committee to investigate what had happened.
The
crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt almost a year ago, but
that the Republican party has itself become so venal, so corrupt, so
ruthless in its quest for power, that it seems assured that we will see
further attempts to overrule any election outcomes they don’t like.
Already the kind of election laws
they’ve pushed across the country seem aimed at such goals, and voter
suppression has long been one of their anti-democratic tactics (it
played a substantial role in Trump’s 2016 win, and the genuine illegitimacies of that election – foreign interference, anomalies the recount might have uncovered had the Republicans not stopped it – were appropriated as false claims for 2020).
The Republicans
made a devil’s bargain decades ago, when they decided that they would
not change course to win the votes of an increasingly nonwhite,
increasingly progressive people, but would try to suppress those who
would vote against them. That is, they pitted themselves against
democracy as participatory government and free and fair elections. The
rhetoric of the far right makes it clear they are fearful and know their
power will ebb if they cannot command and subvert the laws and
elections of this nation, and they are aiming at some form of minority
rule.
That’s perfectly clear from their attack
on the constitutional process unfolding that afternoon of 6 January,
which was itself a refusal to accept a loss. The refusal to recognize
the authority of Congress by Trump associates, including Steve Bannon
and Mark Meadows, is a further sign of their belief, emboldened by
Trump’s four years of criming in public, that they make their own rules.
Both have been found in contempt of Congress.
The
crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt and have a political party
that has gone rogue, but that much of the rest of the nation seems to
be normalizing or forgetting or sleepwalking through the crisis. The
warnings are getting more urgent.
“They’ve
decided to burn it all down with us inside,” said NBC anchor Brian
Williams on Thursday, in his parting words before leaving the network.
Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii stated
Sunday: “The road to autocracy is paved with overly chill responses
from people who would see this all with great clarity if only it were
happening in a faraway place.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared,
“This is nation-ending stuff we’re dealing with here and folks better
wake up soon. I’ll do my part. Think about what yours is.”
I think "they tried" was about overturning Bidens win...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection issued more subpoenas Tuesday, this time to extremist organizations, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers as well as their leaders, in an attempt to uncover the plotting and execution of the deadly attack.
“The Select Committee is seeking information from individuals and organizations reportedly involved with planning the attack, with the violent mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th, or with efforts to overturn the results of the election," Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the panel, said in a statement.
The subpoenas are the latest in a wide net the House panel has cast in an effort to investigate the riot, when supporters of former President Donald Trump, fueled by his false claims of a stolen election, brutally assaulted police and smashed their way into the Capitol to interrupt the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.
The committee has already interviewed more than 150 people across government, social media and law enforcement, including some former Trump aides who have been cooperative. The panel has subpoenaed more than 20 witnesses, and most of them, including several who helped plan the “Stop the Steal” rally the morning of Jan. 6, have signaled they will cooperate.
MORE ON CAPITOL BREACH
AP PHOTOS: Scenes of violence at U.S. Capitol shock world
Oath Keepers, Proud Boys subpoenaed by Jan. 6 House panel
Alex Jones, Roger Stone subpoenaed by House Jan. 6 committee
Florida man spotted with Nancy Pelosi lectern pleads guilty
The subpoenas were issued to members of the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and 1st Amendment Praetorian, including Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, for documents and testimony.
Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, hasn’t been charged in the riot as he wasn’t there on Jan. 6. He’d been arrested in an unrelated vandalism case as he arrived in Washington two days earlier and was ordered out of the area by a judge. Law enforcement later said Tarrio was picked up in part to help quell potential violence.
But despite him not being physically present, the committee believes he may have been involved in the Proud Boys’ preparation for the events at the Capitol.
More than 30 Proud Boys leaders, members or associates are among those who have been charged in connection with the attack. The group of self-described “Western chauvinists” emerged from far-right fringes during the Trump administration to join mainstream GOP circles, with allies like longtime Trump backer Roger Stone. The group claims it has more than 30,000 members nationwide.
The committee on Tuesday also subpoenaed the Oath Keepers — a militia group founded in 2009 that recruits current and former military, police and first responders — and its founder and leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes. The panel says Rhodes may have suggested members should engage in violence to ensure their preferred election outcome and that he was in contact with several of the more than a dozen indicted Oath Keepers members before, during and after the Capitol attack, including meeting some of them outside the Capitol.
Rhodes has said there were as many as 40,000 Oath Keepers at its peak, but one extremism expert estimates the group’s membership stands around 3,000 nationally.
The last organization on the committee’s list Tuesday was the 1st Amendment Praetorian, founded by a QAnon believer, that claims to provide free security for “patriotic and religious events across the country.”
Its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, is wanted by the committee after being listed as a speaker on the permit for a Jan. 5 rally on Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington. On the day of the attack, Lewis tweeted: “Today is the day that true battles begin.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows cooperating with Jan. 6 committee
Meadows has provided records to the committee investigating the attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob and will give a deposition
Mark Meadows, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, is cooperating with the House committee investigating the pro-Trump insurrection, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), said Tuesday.
“Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney,” Thompson said in a statement. “He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition.”
Meadows is the highest-profile member of Trump’s inner circle who is known to be cooperating or who the committee has publicly acknowledged is cooperating. Committee members have previously said many people with connections to the events of that day have voluntarily engaged with investigators, but they have not specified who those individuals are or how high up they were in the Trump administration.
Thompson, in his statement, said that the committee “expects all witnesses, including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive.”
“The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition,” Thompson concluded.
CNN first reported Meadows’s cooperation.
Details of the deal Meadows struck with the committee were not made public. While Meadows has now produced records for the committee and will sit before it, he could still try to claim executive privilege to protect certain pieces of information, making the cooperation fragile.
In a statement, Meadows’s lawyer, George Terwilliger III, told The Washington Post that Meadows and his team “continue to work with the Select Committee and its staff to see if we can reach an accommodation that does not require Mr. Meadows to waive Executive Privilege or to forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.”
“We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” Terwilliger said.
The bipartisan committee is investigating the attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob determined to stop the affirmation of Joe Biden’s presidential win. The riot left five people dead and injured some 140 members of law enforcement who faced a barrage of sticks, bear spray, flagpoles and other items used as weapons.
Earlier this month, White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su sent a letter to Terwilliger notifying him that President Biden will not assert executive privilege or immunity over the documents and deposition requested by the committee related to his client.
As Thompson issued his statement on Meadows, federal judges were questioning whether Trump has the power to go to court to keep White House documents secret from the congressional committee. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit expressed skepticism about the role of the courts in settling disputes between a former president and the sitting president over the release of White House records.
Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee at the end of September and has been “engaged” with investigators to negotiate the terms of his deposition and the turning over of documents. The pace of these discussions, however, caused the committee to weigh more aggressive measures against him.
On Twitter, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, said Meadows “has a legal and moral obligation to cooperate with our committee.”
“I’m glad he has now agreed to appear and has already provided documents,” Schiff said. “We will evaluate the extent of his compliance after his testimony. We must reveal the full truth of what led to January 6.”
The news on Meadows’s cooperation deal comes a day after the select committee announced that it will move to hold Jeffrey Clark, a top official in the Trump Justice Department, in criminal contempt for not complying with its subpoena. A committee vote is expected Wednesday. Meadows’s decision to cooperate could spare him the same treatment.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump adviser, was indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena.
Jacqueline Alemany contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Hopefully they crack open one egg sooner or later and get some good information.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to learn something that most of us already know.
No one of any consequence will face any kind of punishment that fits their particular crime, and more taxpayer money will be wasted in this arena as well.
The US is FUBAR!
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
By Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi
December 01 at 6:04 PM EST
A coalition of news organizations, including The Washington Post, has sided with former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon in asking a federal court to release documents that are part of Bannon’s prosecution for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 congressional committee.
Bannon is fighting a proposal by prosecutors to keep the documents under wraps — including more than 1,000 pages of witness testimony, grand-jury proceedings and other information generated as part of the discovery process in the prosecution of Bannon for alleged contempt of Congress. Journalists would not be able to see the documents if the Justice Department prevails in persuading a judge to impose a protective order.
The legal brief submitted by The Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News and others creates strange bedfellows. It aligns some of the biggest news organizations with one of their harshest critics.
Bannon, who was chief executive of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and briefly Trump’s chief White House strategist, often amplified Trump’s criticism and contempt of the news media. At one point during his brief tenure at the White House, he called the media “the opposition party” and said it “should keep its mouth shut.”
He pleaded not guilty last month to two counts of contempt of Congress. The charges stemmed from his refusal to testify and to turn over material subpoenaed by the Democratic-led House committee that is investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building.
The government contends that public access to the documents would result in publicity that could taint the jury selection process and result in witness intimidation before the trial begins. Prosecutors have argued in a brief that Bannon’s public statements “make clear that defense’s real purpose [is] to abuse criminal discovery to try this case in the media rather than in court.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
WASHINGTON (AP) — In an abrupt reversal, an attorney for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said his client will not cooperate with a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, citing a breakdown in negotiations with the panel.
Attorney George Terwilliger said in a letter Tuesday that a deposition would be “untenable” because the Jan. 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that former President Donald Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege. Terwilliger also said that he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information.
MORE FROM AP POLITICS
Attorney says Meadows won't cooperate with Jan. 6 panel
Biden to warn Putin of economic pain if he invades Ukraine
Bidens honor Pearl Harbor's fallen in visit to WWII Memorial
China says US diplomatic boycott violates Olympic spirit
Terwilliger said in a statement last week that he was continuing to work with the committee and its staff on a potential accommodation that would not require Meadows to waive the executive privileges claimed by Trump or “forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify” before Congress.
“We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics,” he said then.
A spokesperson for the panel did not have immediate comment on Terwilliger’s letter. The committee’s chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, said last week that Meadows had been engaging with the panel through his attorney, producing records and agreeing to appear for an initial deposition.
Thompson said the committee would “continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.” He has said that any witnesses who don’t comply will be held in contempt of Congress.
In halting cooperation, Terwilliger also cited comments from Thompson that he said unfairly cast aspersions on witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A separate witness, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, has said he will invoke those Fifth Amendment rights.
“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.
The reversal comes as Meadows has been receiving attention for a new book, released Tuesday, which revealed that Trump received a positive COVID-19 test before a presidential debate and was far sicker than the White House revealed at the time.
Trump — who told his supporters to “fight like hell” before hundreds of his supporters broke into the Capitol and stopped the presidential electoral count — has attempted to hinder much of the committee’s work, including in an ongoing court case, by arguing that Congress cannot obtain information about his private White House conversations.
___
Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
this is beyond frustrating. i want arrests of those defying subpoenas.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
have one. next is in congressional process for full house vote.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
December 09 at 4:47 PM EST
A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected former president Donald Trump’s bid to keep his White House documents secret from a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, potentially setting up an emergency review by the Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court’s opinion, which said that in a dispute between a current and past president over whether to release White House records, the sitting president must prevail.
Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins and Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the National Archives and Records Administration from releasing the first roughly 800 pages of disputed Trump papers after President Biden declined to assert executive privilege as requested by his predecessor, setting up the first of its kind constitutional controversy.
The court stayed the opinion 14 days for Trump’s legal team to appeal to the Supreme Court, as they requested at a Nov. 30 hearing in case of adverse ruling.
“Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have ‘[a] Republic’—'if [we] can keep it.'” The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted,” Millett wrote a unanimous 68-page-opinion. “In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden’s assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted Monday to recommend contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows as lawmakers revealed a series of frantic texts he received as the attack was underway.
The texts, provided by Meadows before he ceased cooperating with the committee, revealed that members of Congress, Fox News anchors and even President Donald Trump’s own son were urging Meadows to push Trump to act quickly to stop the siege by his supporters.
“We need an Oval address," Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows as his father's supporters were breaking into the Capitol, sending lawmakers running for their lives and interrupting the certification of President Joe Biden's victory. "He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”
Trump Jr. added, "He’s got to condemn this s—- ASAP."
Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the panel's vice chairwoman, detailed the texts obtained by the committee as the panel voted to recommend the contempt charges against Meadows, who did not show up for a deposition last week after his lawyer said he would stop cooperating.
The panel voted 9-0 to recommend the contempt charges. The House is expected to vote Tuesday to refer the charges to the Justice Department, which will decide whether to prosecute the former Republican congressman.
Cheney said the texts show Trump's “supreme dereliction” as he refused to strongly condemn the violence of his supporters, and also raise questions about whether he sought to obstruct the congressional certification through inaction.
“These texts leave no doubt,” Cheney said. “The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol.”
The vote comes as the panel has already interviewed more than 300 witnesses, and subpoenaed more than 40 people, as it seeks to create the most comprehensive record yet of the lead-up to the insurrection and of the violent siege itself. The committee's leaders have vowed to punish anyone who doesn't comply, and the Justice Department has already indicted longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon after he defied his subpoena this fall.
“Whatever legacy he thought he left in the House, this is his legacy now,” committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said of Meadows ahead of the vote. “His former colleagues singling him out for criminal prosecution because he wouldn’t answer questions about what he knows about a brutal attack on our democracy. That’s his legacy.”
In a Monday letter to Thompson, Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger said the contempt vote would be “unjust” because Meadows was one of Trump’s top aides and all presidents should be afforded executive privilege to shield their private conversations. Meadows himself sued the panel, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”
Terwilliger noted that the contempt statute has been used infrequently over time and argued that a contempt referral of a senior presidential aide “would do great damage to the institution of the Presidency.”
STEVE BANNON
Jan. 6 panel votes for contempt charges against Mark Meadows
Meadows sues as Jan. 6 panel proceeds with contempt case
Jan. 6 panel threatens contempt vote after Meadows withdraws
Turning outrage into power: How far right is changing GOP
The committee has gradually teased a handful of the emails and texts Meadows had provided to the committee before he ended his cooperation — including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages. The panel has not released any of the communications in full.
On Monday, Cheney read the texts from Trump Jr. and a series of Fox News hosts as those in Trump’s inner circle attempted to reach the president through his chief of staff, imploring him to take action against the violence that was taking place outside and inside the Capitol.
“Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home ... this is hurting all of us ... he is destroying his legacy,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham texted Meadows, according to the committee.
“Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished,” Brian Kilmeade wrote.
In response to one text from Trump Jr., Meadows texted: “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.”
Cheney also detailed texts that she said were from members of Congress and others in the Capitol.
“Hey, Mark, protestors are literally storming the Capitol,” read one text. "Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?”
Another appeared to come from a member in the House chamber. “There’s an armed standoff at the House Chamber door,” the text read, according to the panel.
If Meadows had appeared for his deposition, lawmakers had planned to ask him about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in the weeks before the insurrection, including his outreach to states and his communications with members of Congress.
Trump’s former top White House aide “is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump’s reelection campaign,” the panel said in a 51-page report released Sunday evening.
As part of its list of questions for Meadows, the panel says it wanted to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters beat police guarding the Capitol building.
The documents provided by Meadows include an email he sent to an unidentified person saying that the Guard would be present to “protect pro Trump people," the panel said, and that more would be available on standby. The committee did not release any additional details about the email.
In a transcript of the deposition Meadows skipped, committee staff said they would have interviewed Meadows about emails “to leadership at the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud,” even though election officials and courts across the country had rejected those claims.
In a text exchange with an unidentified senator, the committee said, Meadows said Trump believed Vice President Mike Pence had power to reject electors in his role presiding over the Jan. 6 certification.
Pence did not have that power under the law, as the vice president’s function is largely ceremonial.
___
Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Agreed.
Last night's developments were interesting to say the least. It won't mean much to the 'fake news' or 'both sides' crowd, but interesting none the less.
names yet to be named but known. Who, when, what was said...........
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
America witnessed a coup attempt. Now it’s sleep-walking into another disaster
That the goal was a coup is a solemnly horrifying fact. That those who orchestrated it and those who have excused and dismissed it afterward continue to conspire against the rule of law and the right of the people to choose their leaders is another such fact. Documents such as the Powerpoint presentation turned over to the 6 January commission by Trump’s then chief of staff Mark Meadows confirm the details and build our understanding of the threat. On the basis of sometimes ridiculous pretexts, the circle around Trump intended to steal the election and seize power. Many, including Utah senator Mike Lee and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, reportedly knew the agenda.
Had they succeeded in grabbing power with such an openly lawless act, they could have kept it only by suspending the rule of law. This is what a dictatorship is, and this is what they wanted: a government in which laws are nothing and the ruling junta or thug is everything. What the American people and foreign nations would have done in response might have overturned it further down the road, had it not failed that day, but the whole business is still terrifying, and the threat is not over.
It was clear the military leadership was already alarmed: on 3 January , all 10 living secretaries of defense coauthored an editorial declaring, “Efforts to involve the US armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.”
That few Republicans would defend the US constitution, the voice of the voters and the orderly transition of power was also obvious. At 1.09pm that day, the Capitol police chief said he wanted to declare an emergency and call in the National Guard. At 1.11pm, Trump ended his speech with the words “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…” At 1.12pm, two of America’s slimiest elected officials, Congressman Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz, were objecting to certifying Arizona’s electoral votes. Gosar, according to two participants in the riot, seemed to know what was coming and had promised “blanket pardons”. The evacuation of the House and Senate would begin an hour later. At 2.24, Trump tweeted, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…”
Two conservative Republicans, Vice-President Mike Pence and Congresswoman Liz Cheney, have been among the few to refuse to participate in the coup, the big lie and the surrounding corruption, and have paid for it. That terrible day, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly called Trump to rage and curse at him and demand he call the mob off, but he would then fall in line and fudge the reality and significance of what happened. That day, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell noted that to overturn the election results would send democracy into a “death spiral”. Afterward he was furious and shaken, but he too squirmed his way back into alignment with the big lie. By May he was trying to block the formation of the 6 January committee to investigate what had happened.
The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt almost a year ago, but that the Republican party has itself become so venal, so corrupt, so ruthless in its quest for power, that it seems assured that we will see further attempts to overrule any election outcomes they don’t like. Already the kind of election laws they’ve pushed across the country seem aimed at such goals, and voter suppression has long been one of their anti-democratic tactics (it played a substantial role in Trump’s 2016 win, and the genuine illegitimacies of that election – foreign interference, anomalies the recount might have uncovered had the Republicans not stopped it – were appropriated as false claims for 2020).
The Republicans made a devil’s bargain decades ago, when they decided that they would not change course to win the votes of an increasingly nonwhite, increasingly progressive people, but would try to suppress those who would vote against them. That is, they pitted themselves against democracy as participatory government and free and fair elections. The rhetoric of the far right makes it clear they are fearful and know their power will ebb if they cannot command and subvert the laws and elections of this nation, and they are aiming at some form of minority rule.
That’s perfectly clear from their attack on the constitutional process unfolding that afternoon of 6 January, which was itself a refusal to accept a loss. The refusal to recognize the authority of Congress by Trump associates, including Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, is a further sign of their belief, emboldened by Trump’s four years of criming in public, that they make their own rules. Both have been found in contempt of Congress.
The crisis isn’t just that we had a coup attempt and have a political party that has gone rogue, but that much of the rest of the nation seems to be normalizing or forgetting or sleepwalking through the crisis. The warnings are getting more urgent.
“They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside,” said NBC anchor Brian Williams on Thursday, in his parting words before leaving the network. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii stated Sunday: “The road to autocracy is paved with overly chill responses from people who would see this all with great clarity if only it were happening in a faraway place.” Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy declared, “This is nation-ending stuff we’re dealing with here and folks better wake up soon. I’ll do my part. Think about what yours is.”
I think "they tried" was about overturning Bidens win...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14