Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[jonnysensible]

I have to ask, does anyone expect Trump to be punished? Also does anyone expect these hearings to actually affect the elections? I am not talking about what should happen, just about what people expect to happen.

i thought these hearings are just to gather information and then recommend policy changes?

[Edge-]

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/sec...testify-panel/

Huh...why are the Secret Service agents that are claiming that Cassidy Hutchinson was not being honest not willing to testify under oath to that effect? She was under oath when she testified, even if she was simply relaying a story she'd heard and it was second-hand information.

Odd that these guys are lawyering up and unwilling to testify? Can't they be forced to do so as part of their jobs? Because that seems like something that should happen, what with them seeming to be increasingly dishonest and placing their loyalty to Trump over the United States and whatnot.

Odd that Republicans and Trump supporters generally seem strongly disinclined to speak under oath like...ever. And when they do, they always struggle to recall anything.

[Endus]

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/sec...testify-panel/

Huh...why are the Secret Service agents that are claiming that Cassidy Hutchinson was not being honest not willing to testify under oath to that effect? She was under oath when she testified, even if she was simply relaying a story she'd heard and it was second-hand information.

Odd that these guys are lawyering up and unwilling to testify? Can't they be forced to do so as part of their jobs? Because that seems like something that should happen, what with them seeming to be increasingly dishonest and placing their loyalty to Trump over the United States and whatnot.

Odd that Republicans and Trump supporters generally seem strongly disinclined to speak under oath like...ever. And when they do, they always struggle to recall anything.

If you won't testify under oath, your claims should not be given credence in situations like this. If you want the courts to consider your testimony, come in and give your oath and testify. Otherwise, you're blathering and you could just be openly lying because there's no legal penalty for doing so.

[Paranoid Android]

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/sec...testify-panel/

Huh...why are the Secret Service agents that are claiming that Cassidy Hutchinson was not being honest not willing to testify under oath to that effect? She was under oath when she testified, even if she was simply relaying a story she'd heard and it was second-hand information.

Odd that these guys are lawyering up and unwilling to testify? Can't they be forced to do so as part of their jobs? Because that seems like something that should happen, what with them seeming to be increasingly dishonest and placing their loyalty to Trump over the United States and whatnot.

Odd that Republicans and Trump supporters generally seem strongly disinclined to speak under oath like...ever. And when they do, they always struggle to recall anything.

I mean this has been crushed. First as stated they didn't want to testify to discredit Hutchinson and now the BIG one of the texts being erased. Sorry I don't have the link but read article the other day that 10 out of the 24 USSS agents had their texts purged or whatever.

If you want to give them any slack it doesn't mean they were in a conspiracy of the coup. Maybe they said texted something that incremented someone else or they are just Trump loyalists which I have stated a few times, is scary.

[cubby]

Win for the Violent Insurrection Camp - Judge blocks Georgia DA from developing case against Republican state senator in Trump investigation.

(edited because one word makes all the difference)

I'll be in my usual timeout corner for my customary five minutes.

[DarkTZeratul]

Win for the Violent Insurrection Camp - Judge blocks Georgia DA from developing case against Republican state senator in Trump investigation.

Did they give a reason for blocking it? I didn't see one in the article, but I might have missed it.

[cubby]

Did they give a reason for blocking it? I didn't see one in the article, but I might have missed it.

Conflict of interest because the DA put on a fund raising event for the GQP State Senator. Because apparently it's ok for one side to have conflicts but not the other.

[Edge-]

Did they give a reason for blocking it? I didn't see one in the article, but I might have missed it.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-willis-office

DA was campaigning for Democratic candidates in their runoff, compromising the integrity of the investigation given that the DA is investigating the Republican challenger to Bailey (Democrat who won the primary), whom she publicly supports in an official capacity.

Basically if the AG puts another DA on the case it can continue. This only impacts Jones and nobody else.

Honestly, this was dumb on the DA's part. If you're involved in potentially political investigations around election season, keep your office the fuck outta partisan politics. I think this is a bit of clutching at pearls, but there's at least some merit to the argument. And the investigation should swiftly be given to another DA to pursue.

[cubby]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-willis-office

DA was campaigning for Democratic candidates in their runoff, compromising the integrity of the investigation given that the DA is inherently investigating the Republican challenger to Bailey, whom she publicly supports in an official capacity.

Basically if the AG puts another DA on the case it can continue. This only impacts Jones and nobody else.

Honestly, this was dumb on the DA's part. If you're involved in potentially political investigations around election season, keep your office the fuck outta partisan politics. I think this is a bit of clutching at pearls, but there's at least some merit to the argument. And the investigation should swiftly be given to another DA to pursue.

I would agree with you that there is merit to the argument - I mean, of course there is. But the times we live in now, where the GQP not only doesn't play by the rules, but doesn't even acknowledge them, makes me just "up-in-arms" at this ruling.

But...really, and objectively, it's the right call.

[Edge-]

I would agree with you that there is merit to the argument - I mean, of course there is. But the times we live in now, where the GQP not only doesn't play by the rules, but doesn't even acknowledge them, makes me just "up-in-arms" at this ruling.

But...really, and objectively, it's the right call.

Yeah, it's just super frustrating because, as we're continuing to see, Democrats just can't stop shooting themselves in the foot. Same thing with the NY investigation that was killed because the DA was too chickenshit to continue pursuing it.

[Paranoid Android]

Yeah our democracy is effed. One side is really putting their thumbs on the scale while the other side (cough the Dems, if you don't get the hint) are just standing by thinking "Every thing is gonna be Alright". Anyone else see Black Panther, Wakanda Forever trailer? Awesome!

- - - Updated - - -

DOJ has not released the unredacted Mueller report for 3 years.

Merrick Garland did not pick up any of Mueller's packaged cases + let Comey obstruction expire.

Jan 6 comm has given DOJ less than 25% of their transcripts.

What happened to the 4+ years SDNY Trump investigations?

Garland can just eff off and if we have scapegoats when our democracy collapses will be Garland.

I wanted to bring this up at leas a week ago, wondering about Mueller Report, when Mueller himself was very much a field mouse on this and passed the buck. Mueller harshest and biggest statement was that Trump can be prosecuted by the DOJ, obviously Barr or whoever was not going to do it. Also stated that ex-presidents cant be prosecuted. Well here we are.

The Comey obstruction. Jeez I forgot about his in all of Trump's crimes. Trump admitting it on national tv. Now, like everything it's not a slam dunk but at least try.

Jan 6th while you say the hearing but has been over a year and half and doesn't need this. If I'm correct most say DOJ had this evidence for awhile.

SDNY. Well, I posted thin In Trump Thread and that's sad enough.

[Ripster42]

i thought these hearings are just to gather information and then recommend policy changes?

While that's one of congress' jobs, it's not the only one related to the investigation. They also have a responsibility to investigate other members of gov't, both past and present, for the purposes of impeachment/conviction and banning them from ever serving in gov't again.

[Paranoid Android]

So it’s clear the DOJ Jan 6 grand jury is finally going for the jugular:

It’s targeting Trump’s role in criminally pressuring his own VP to help him overturn his 2020 loss to Biden.

AG Garland is on the right track. Now he just needs to step on the gas

First this tweet is from Laurence Tribe, who has been very critical of Merrick Garland. This is a comment on an NYT article.

OH this is the news that Mark Short, Trump's chief of Staff was subpoenaed by DOJ. Let's see where this goes.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve...b0aad58d1e13ca

Steve Bannon revealed he is having a one-hour special to train "4,000 shock troops" on the plan for "deconstructing" the government.

"And particularly [we] want people stepping forward, say, hey, I want to be one of those 4,000 shock troops."

Bannon, after decidedly not "going medieval" at his court date, flirts with incitement.

[Kaleredar]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve...b0aad58d1e13ca



Bannon, after decidedly not "going medieval" at his court date, flirts with incitement.

Hmmm, that kinda sounds like "terrorism" to me.

I doubt a band of redneck ya'llqaeda will actually accomplish anything to any end. Unfortunately, they still might harm people. But this seems like a pretty obvious smoking gun if such violence does come to pass.

And I suppose it's... nice... that Bannon will apparently be broadcasting his strategy out to the FBI?

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lawyer...al-report-says

We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted

Republican lawyers, in internal discussions about their attempts to subvert the vote.

In case there were any illusions about them genuinely believing all the malarky they said publicly: They didn't. They knew these were fake electors, they knew this was a dishonest scheme, they simply don't care.

[Breccia]

Republican lawyers, in internal discussions about their attempts to subvert the vote.

Oh boy, does it get better. Quoting the NYTimes because this is why you people pay me the big bucks.

"We get paid?"

Shh, not yet.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

"But...now?"

Yes, now.

"But surely the 'fake' was simply added by TheDailyBest. Surely Team Trump had full faith in these patriotic patriots of patriotism."

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

"Oh, well at least they were treating the matter seriously."

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes”

"...partial seriousness."

adding a smiley face emoji.

"God dammit."

The emails provide new details of how a wing of the Trump campaign worked with outside lawyers and advisers to organize the elector plan and pursue a range of other options, often with little thought to their practicality. One email showed that many of Mr. Trump’s top advisers were informed of problems naming Trump electors in Michigan — a state he had lost — because pandemic rules had closed the state Capitol building where the so-called electors had to gather.

The emails show that participants in the discussions reported details of their activities to Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and in at least one case to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff. Around the same time, according to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, Mr. Meadows emailed another campaign adviser saying, “We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for states.”

Many of the emails went to Mr. Epshteyn, who was acting as a coordinator for people inside and outside the Trump campaign and the White House and remains a close aide to Mr. Trump.

"Clearly this Epstein is just a covfefe boy of no real importance. I doubt anyone even heard from him."

He directly wrote in these emails multiple times that he was talking to Trump directly.

"...that's hearsay. He was probably just bragging. There's no chance anyone else important--"

Mr. Epshteyn, the emails show, was a regular point of contact for John Eastman, the lawyer whose plan for derailing congressional certification of the Electoral College result on Jan. 6, 2021, was embraced by Mr. Trump.

"...okay, Eastman, but n--"

Mr. Epshteyn not only fielded and passed along to Mr. Giuliani

"Oh, log me in the cabin."

the detailed proposal for Jan. 6 prepared by Mr. Eastman, he also handled questions about how to pay Mr. Eastman and made the arrangements for him to visit the White House on Jan. 4, 2021, the emails show.

Mr. Epshteyn and Mr. Roman, the emails show, coordinated with others who played roles in advising Mr. Trump. Among them were the lawyers Jenna Ellis and Bruce Marks; Gary Michael Brown, who served as the deputy director of Election Day operations for Mr. Trump’s campaign; and Christina Bobb, who at the time worked for One America News Network and now works with Mr. Trump’s PAC.

Hey, remember all that work OAN did spreading Trump's blatant lies about the election? Near as I can tell, that lawsuit is ongoing. If OAN is proven to have known there were fake electors and still kept shrilling "fraud" they're as good as dead.

"Okay, but none of that proves they knew this was illegal. Only morally repugnant and anti-democracy."

The emails were apparently not shared with lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office, who advised that the “fake electors” plan was not legally sound, or other lawyers on the campaign.

Some of the participants also expressed approval in the emails for keeping some of their activities out of the public eye.

For instance, after Mr. Trump hosted Pennsylvania state legislators at the White House in late November to discuss reversing the election outcome, Mr. Epshteyn celebrated when news of the meeting didn’t quickly leak. “The WH meeting hasn’t been made public, which is both shocking and great,” he wrote to Ms. Ellis.

On Dec. 8, 2020, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that Kelli Ward, one of the Republicans in Arizona participating in the fake electors plan, recommended trying “to keep it under wraps until Congress counts the vote Jan. 6th (so we can try to ‘surprise’ the Dems and media with it) — I tend to agree with her.”

By intentionally avoiding specific people who had said this plan was not legal, yes, they were demonstrating they knew it was not legal.

Now, the NYTimes does not mention that Trump sent or read any of these emails, big surprise, they were likely more than 140 characters. Maybe not the one with the emoji. But it starts to strain credibility that everyone in Trump's orbit knew about this, they had a big behind-closed-doors meeting Jan 4th, and then fake electors started showing up a day or two later.

The NYTimes reached out to basically every name on those emails. Only one responded with, and yes I am editorializing but not lying, "It was all completely okay and there was nothing wrong with it, also I had nothing to do with it in any way".

By early December, Mr. Epshteyn was seemingly helping to coordinate the efforts, conferring repeatedly with Mr. Marks and others. Mr. Wilenchik told his fellow lawyers he had been discussing an idea proposed by still another lawyer working with the campaign, Kenneth Chesebro, an ally of Mr. Eastman’s, to submit slates of electors loyal to Mr. Trump.

“His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people.

And then, yes, he called them "fake" as quoted above. Same email and everything. Not legal. Fake. Ours. Their words.

How many people in Trump's direct control need to be in on this, before it's beyond reasonable doubt that Trump magically didn't know? Because, at this point, this email chain is basically a viral signed confession by everyone who responded. And at least one will think about flipping. Possibly that Marks guy who claims he had nothing to do with it.

[Shadowferal]

Garland dismisses criticism of Jan. 6 probe, vows to charge ‘everybody who was criminally responsible’

In an interview with NBC News, Garland insisted the department was urgently investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the events leading up to it, vowing to charge “everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power.”

Need to see Trump in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.

[Endus]

Garland dismisses criticism of Jan. 6 probe, vows to charge ‘everybody who was criminally responsible’

In an interview with NBC News, Garland insisted the department was urgently investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the events leading up to it, vowing to charge “everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power.”

Need to see Trump in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.

It's weasel words, and nobody should put up with it.

By stating "everyone who was criminally responsible", Garland does two things;

1> He establishes that the DOJ will make pre-emptive determinations about said "responsibility", when that's the authority of the courts. That's why we have court cases. Let everyone sharing any potential responsibility make their defense in court. That's how the court system is intended to work.
2> He also establishes grounds tonot charge politically-influential targets; he can just flatly deny that they could ever be "criminally responsible". It's entirely on his personal judgement, not any objective standard, and thus there's no grounds for criticising that decision; all you can say is "but I don't agree" and Garland's response can be "well, I'm the AG, so tough nuts". That's unacceptable as a standard for this kind of thing. Especially given the first element here, since he's already opened the door to giving influential friends and allies a "pass" on the basis of "because I said so, fuck off".

It's the equivalent of a cop saying he's only gonna arrest "criminals" It tries to get you to presume their actions are justified rather than engaging critically and holding them to external, objective standards.

[gondrin]

Oh boy, does it get better. Quoting the NYTimes because this is why you people pay me the big bucks.

Well, I heard you got paid in the crypto Luna. Better have cashed them in a while back.