JAN 6 COMMITTEE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY 12/19- They're making a list & Liz is checking it twice, criminal referrals on the way, MERRY XMAS BITCHES

[easy_b]

Appeals court grants Trump delay in releasing records to Jan. 6 probe

KEY POINTS

• A federal appeals court on Thursday granted former President Donald Trump’s request to temporarily halt the release of White House records to lawmakers investigating the deadly Capitol invasion.
• The court order came one day before the National Archives was set to begin producing those records to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack.
• Trump had sued the committee in mid-October to block its pursuit of a tranche of records from Trump’s term in office, arguing that many of them are protected by executive privilege.

A federal appeals court on Thursday granted former President Donald Trump’s request to temporarily halt the release of White House records to lawmakers investigating the deadly Capitol invasion.

The court order came one day before the National Archives was set to begin producing those records to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack. But that move is now on hold as the appeals court considers the case on an abbreviated schedule, with oral argument set for the morning of Nov. 30.




Trump had sued the committee in mid-October to block its pursuit of a tranche of records dating from his time in office. Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, argued that many of those records are protected by executive privilege, the doctrine that allows some executive branch communications to be kept confidential. But President Joe Biden refused to invoke privilege over the disputed documents.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Binnall’s argument on Tuesday night. In a 39-page opinion, Chutkan wrote that Trump’s view “appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity.’ ... But president are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

Chutkan agreed with the House committee that, in disputes about executive privilege, the current president’s stance matters more than that of his or her predecessor.

She also disagreed with Binnall’s argument that it was in the public interest to keep the records hidden. “The court holds that the public interest lies in permitting — not enjoining — the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again,” Chutkan wrote.

Trump filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit less than an hour later.




Binnall in an emergency request Thursday morning asked the appellate court to briefly pause the release of the contested records while it considers another injunction on a fast-track basis.

The House committee and the National Archives did not oppose the request, Binnall wrote.

On Thursday afternoon, the appellate court approved that request for an administrative injunction. The National Archives and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero are “enjoined from releasing the records requested by the House Select Committee over which appellant asserts executive privilege, pending further order of this court,” the court order said.

The appellate court also granted Binnall’s request to expedite its consideration of Trump’s bid to withhold the records from the House panel.


CONTINUED:
Appeals court grants Trump delay in releasing records to Jan. 6 probe (cnbc.com)

You got to be fucking kidding me. There’s going to be some blow torches tomorrow. Trump did not have a case to block this what the fucking hell.

 

[blackpepper]

Appeals court grants Trump delay in releasing records to Jan. 6 probe

KEY POINTS

• A federal appeals court on Thursday granted former President Donald Trump’s request to temporarily halt the release of White House records to lawmakers investigating the deadly Capitol invasion.
• The court order came one day before the National Archives was set to begin producing those records to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack.
• Trump had sued the committee in mid-October to block its pursuit of a tranche of records from Trump’s term in office, arguing that many of them are protected by executive privilege.

A federal appeals court on Thursday granted former President Donald Trump’s request to temporarily halt the release of White House records to lawmakers investigating the deadly Capitol invasion.

The court order came one day before the National Archives was set to begin producing those records to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack. But that move is now on hold as the appeals court considers the case on an abbreviated schedule, with oral argument set for the morning of Nov. 30.




Trump had sued the committee in mid-October to block its pursuit of a tranche of records dating from his time in office. Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, argued that many of those records are protected by executive privilege, the doctrine that allows some executive branch communications to be kept confidential. But President Joe Biden refused to invoke privilege over the disputed documents.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Binnall’s argument on Tuesday night. In a 39-page opinion, Chutkan wrote that Trump’s view “appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity.’ ... But president are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

Chutkan agreed with the House committee that, in disputes about executive privilege, the current president’s stance matters more than that of his or her predecessor.

She also disagreed with Binnall’s argument that it was in the public interest to keep the records hidden. “The court holds that the public interest lies in permitting — not enjoining — the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again,” Chutkan wrote.

Trump filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit less than an hour later.




Binnall in an emergency request Thursday morning asked the appellate court to briefly pause the release of the contested records while it considers another injunction on a fast-track basis.

The House committee and the National Archives did not oppose the request, Binnall wrote.

On Thursday afternoon, the appellate court approved that request for an administrative injunction. The National Archives and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero are “enjoined from releasing the records requested by the House Select Committee over which appellant asserts executive privilege, pending further order of this court,” the court order said.

The appellate court also granted Binnall’s request to expedite its consideration of Trump’s bid to withhold the records from the House panel.


CONTINUED:
Appeals court grants Trump delay in releasing records to Jan. 6 probe (cnbc.com)

I fully expected this to just keep climbing up through the court system until it reaches the SCOTUS. That's their plan.

 

[easy_b]

I fully expected this to just keep climbing up through the court system until it reaches the SCOTUS. That's their plan.

I was just looking at Twitter at the story and some moderate Republicans are pissed off at this because Trump might drag this into next year. Apparently there is some incriminating shit in those archives they could get a lot of people in trouble outside of Trump. I am no lawyer but Trump did not have a leg to stand on in this case…..none.

 

[blackpepper]

I was just looking at Twitter at the story and some moderate Republicans are pissed off at this because Trump might drag this into next year. Apparently there is some incriminating shit in those archives they could get a lot of people in trouble outside of Trump. I am no lawyer but Trump did not have a leg to stand on in this case…..none.

He doesn't need a legal leg to stand, ie legal president. He needs only to have the applet courts fall inline with the people that put them in their positions. At that point they can just make up something via convoluted legaleeze to justify letting him off the hook. That would do it.

 

[easy_b]

He doesn't need a legal leg to stand, ie legal president. He needs only to have the applet courts fall inline with the people that put them in their positions. At that point they can just make up something via convoluted legaleeze to justify letting him off the hook. That would do it.

Just imagine if Obama had did this just imagine!!!!!!! I tell you This country is going to get a huge dose of karma…We better Keep our eyes open. We are trying to get Trump the legal way but boy somebody is really trying to hide some information.

 

[55th View]

He doesn't need a legal leg to stand, ie legal president. He needs only to have the applet courts fall inline with the people that put them in their positions. At that point they can just make up something via convoluted legaleeze to justify letting him off the hook. That would do it.

Do those courts limit oral arguments to iPhones and iPads?

 

[lightbright]

Mark Meadows Could Face Criminal Charges After Ignoring Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

TOPLINE

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows did not show up Friday to give a deposition to the House committee investigating the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, despite being legally obligated to do so, meaning Meadows could become the latest Trump administration official facing contempt of Congress charges.

KEY FACTS
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) warned Meadows' attorney in a letter that ignoring the committee's requests for documents and a deposition could result in the committee invoking contempt of Congress procedures.
Meadows is among the most prominent of dozens of former Trump officials that have been given subpoenas legally requiring them to provide information to the committee regarding the January 6 rioting.
The House of Representatives has already voted to hold former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in contempt for disregarding his subpoena, while Thompson told Politico that contempt is “on the table” for former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who also ignored his subpoena.

CRUCIAL QUOTE
“Mr. Meadows has not produced even a single document in response to the Select Committee’s subpoena,” Thompson said in the letter, sent on Thursday. “Simply put, there is no valid legal basis for Mr. Meadows’s continued resistance to the Select Committee’s subpoena.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR
If Meadows is to be held in contempt, the January 6 select committee must first vote for the charges, which will be followed by a vote of the full House. If the House votes in favor of charges, the Justice Department, which has final say in whether charges are issued, will then be alerted of the House’s recommendation. In Bannon’s case, the House has voted for charges but the Justice Department has not made any indictments.


KEY BACKGROUND
Many of the most visible figures in the Trump administration, including press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and senior adviser Stephen Miller, were issued subpoenas by the committee earlier this week, as Thompson said it works to find "every detail of what went on in the White House on January 6th." More than 150 witnesses have testified before committee investigators, according to The New York Times. At least five of those have been former Trump White House staffers that have decided to speak voluntarily, according to CNN. Trump has called the committee members “politically ambitious hacks” and said his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol was simply a “PROTEST.”




Mark Meadows Could Face Criminal Charges After Ignoring Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena (forbes.com)

 

[lightbright]

"I told that husky two dress shirt wearin
cracker that we ain't fucking around!!!"​

Have a Happy Thanksgiving traitor ass Cracker.......

Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress
By Hannah Rabinowitz, Jessica Schneider, Evan Perez and Paula Reid, CNN

Updated 4:01 PM ET, Fri November 12, 2021

(CNN)A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, the Justice Department announced Friday.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has been under tremendous political pressure to indict Bannon since the House referred the Trump ally to the Justice Department for contempt on October 21.
Without an indictment, critics have said, there's doubt over how much power the House January 6 committee has to compel cooperation from former White House and Trump administration officials. Friday, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows failed to appear for a deposition, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN, setting up a potential showdown that could lead to the panel beginning a criminal referral process against him.
And last week, former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who had been subpoenaed, appeared before the committee for more than an hour but declined to answer questions.

The House January 6 committee subpoenaed documents and testimony from Bannon in early October.
Bannon's lawyer, Robert Costello, told the committee the former Trump adviser would not be cooperating with the investigation because he had been directed not to by Trump. Pointing to claims from Trump that the documents and testimony being sought was potentially protected by executive privilege, Bannon's lawyer told the committee that "the executive privileges belong to President Trump" and "we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege."
President Joe Biden's White House has declined to assert executive privilege regarding witnesses and documents related to January 6, citing the extraordinary nature of the attack on the Capitol. The White House counsel's office has written to Bannon's attorney to tell him they won't support his refusals to testify.
In seeking his cooperation, the committee has pointed to reports that Bannon spoke to Trump in the lead-up to the Capitol riot, that he was present at the so-called "war room" of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, as the attack was unfolding, and that he made comments on his podcast the day prior predicting that "all hell" was "going to break loose" the next day.
"In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions," the House committee said in its report putting forward a contempt resolution against Bannon.
Legal experts also have expressed skepticism about Bannon's decision not to comply with the subpoena, given that the question of whether Trump as a former President can assert privilege is unsettled, and that Bannon was not working for the government in the period being examined by the committee.
Any criminal case against Bannon could take years to unfold in court, and a successful prosecution isn't a certainty. Historically, criminal contempt of Congress cases have been derailed by juries sympathetic to the defendants and by appeals rulings. Bannon's case is likely to raise novel legal questions about executive privilege and about the House's ability to enforce its investigative subpoenas when they seek information about the executive branch.
The House has pinned its hopes on the prosecution of Bannon as well, with the committee trying to make Bannon an example of the possible consequences for uncooperative witnesses.
"They have obviously got their process. They've got to run their traps on all of the guidelines for deciding on a criminal prosecution in a case like that," Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee and a Maryland Democrat, told CNN earlier this month when asked if he believes the Justice Department is dragging its feet on Bannon.
"We think it's an open-and-shut case," Raskin added.
"This is an early test of whether our democracy is recovering," Rep. Adam Schiff, another member of the select committee and California Democrat, said previously on CNN.
This story is breaking and will be updated.


CONTINUED:
Steve Bannon: Trump ally indicted for igonoring subpoena from House January 6 committee - CNNPolitics

 

[DC_Dude]

 

[lightbright]

He'd better get his supply of double dress shirts pressed....

.

 

[blackpepper]

Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress
By Hannah Rabinowitz, Jessica Schneider, Ev

.... Any criminal case against Bannon could take years to unfold in court, and a successful prosecution isn't a certainty. Historically, criminal contempt of Congress cases have been derailed by juries sympathetic to the defendants and by appeals rulings. Bannon's case is likely to raise novel legal questions about executive privilege and about the House's ability to enforce its investigative subpoenas when they seek information about the executive branch. ...

 

[Soul On Ice]

"I told that husky two dress shirt wearin
cracker that we ain't fucking around!!!"​

Have a Happy Thanksgiving traitor ass Cracker.......

Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress
By Hannah Rabinowitz, Jessica Schneider, Evan Perez and Paula Reid, CNN

Updated 4:01 PM ET, Fri November 12, 2021

(CNN)A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, the Justice Department announced Friday.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has been under tremendous political pressure to indict Bannon since the House referred the Trump ally to the Justice Department for contempt on October 21.
Without an indictment, critics have said, there's doubt over how much power the House January 6 committee has to compel cooperation from former White House and Trump administration officials. Friday, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows failed to appear for a deposition, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN, setting up a potential showdown that could lead to the panel beginning a criminal referral process against him.
And last week, former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who had been subpoenaed, appeared before the committee for more than an hour but declined to answer questions.

The House January 6 committee subpoenaed documents and testimony from Bannon in early October.
Bannon's lawyer, Robert Costello, told the committee the former Trump adviser would not be cooperating with the investigation because he had been directed not to by Trump. Pointing to claims from Trump that the documents and testimony being sought was potentially protected by executive privilege, Bannon's lawyer told the committee that "the executive privileges belong to President Trump" and "we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege."
President Joe Biden's White House has declined to assert executive privilege regarding witnesses and documents related to January 6, citing the extraordinary nature of the attack on the Capitol. The White House counsel's office has written to Bannon's attorney to tell him they won't support his refusals to testify.
In seeking his cooperation, the committee has pointed to reports that Bannon spoke to Trump in the lead-up to the Capitol riot, that he was present at the so-called "war room" of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, as the attack was unfolding, and that he made comments on his podcast the day prior predicting that "all hell" was "going to break loose" the next day.
"In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions," the House committee said in its report putting forward a contempt resolution against Bannon.
Legal experts also have expressed skepticism about Bannon's decision not to comply with the subpoena, given that the question of whether Trump as a former President can assert privilege is unsettled, and that Bannon was not working for the government in the period being examined by the committee.
Any criminal case against Bannon could take years to unfold in court, and a successful prosecution isn't a certainty. Historically, criminal contempt of Congress cases have been derailed by juries sympathetic to the defendants and by appeals rulings. Bannon's case is likely to raise novel legal questions about executive privilege and about the House's ability to enforce its investigative subpoenas when they seek information about the executive branch.
The House has pinned its hopes on the prosecution of Bannon as well, with the committee trying to make Bannon an example of the possible consequences for uncooperative witnesses.
"They have obviously got their process. They've got to run their traps on all of the guidelines for deciding on a criminal prosecution in a case like that," Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee and a Maryland Democrat, told CNN earlier this month when asked if he believes the Justice Department is dragging its feet on Bannon.
"We think it's an open-and-shut case," Raskin added.
"This is an early test of whether our democracy is recovering," Rep. Adam Schiff, another member of the select committee and California Democrat, said previously on CNN.
This story is breaking and will be updated.


CONTINUED:
Steve Bannon: Trump ally indicted for igonoring subpoena from House January 6 committee - CNNPolitics

Wow. Your bitch ass didn't make a new thread for this. You added it to one of your 20 existing ones on this topic.
#progress


*Unless a mod merged this shit

 

[lightbright]

Wow. Your bitch ass didn't make a new thread for this. You added it to one of your 20 existing ones on this topic.
#progress


*Unless a mod merged this shit

Aaaaaaaw.... is daddy's lil girl mad? I bet that you were tired as hell and slept all day today after servicing.... your country on Veterans Day ..... bet you put your red, white n blue military knee pads on... star spangled bitch that you are

#PoleAssasin #ThroatFairy #FagOnIce
#TheRealHouseFagOfAtl

 

[lightbright]

​

 

[darth frosty]

 

[easy_b]

Man they got bread crumbs all over the place

 

[lightbright]

I'd like to see that smug look wiped offa that cracker Stone's face for once.... and after losing that Sandy Hooh defamation case.... Jones might commit suicide

New January 6 committee subpoenas issued for 5 Trump allies including Roger Stone and Alex Jones

(CNN)The House select committee investigating the January 6 riot issued a new round of subpoenas on Monday to five of former President Donald Trump's allies directly involved in planning "Stop the Steal" rallies, including longtime Republican operative Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
The latest batch of subpoenas indicates the committee continues to focus, in part, on organizers and funding of the "Stop the Steal" rallies that took place on January 5 and 6, as well as earlier rallies in the months leading up to the US Capitol attack.
Also subpoenaed by the committee Monday: Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lawrence, key players in the "Stop the Steal" movement after the election.
Stockton was one of the administrators of a "Stop the Steal" Facebook group that amassed hundreds of thousands of followers before it was shut down by the social media company on November 5 -- the day after it was launched.

Taylor Budowich, who is currently the primary political spokesperson for the former President and serves as communications director for the Save America PAC, was the final individual subpoenaed Monday. In its subpoena letter, the committee cites that Budowich "reportedly solicited a 501c(4) organization to conduct a social media and radio advertising campaign encouraging attendance at the January 6th Ellipse rally and advancing unsupported claims about the result of the election."
"The Select Committee is seeking information about the rallies and subsequent march to the Capitol that escalated into a violent mob attacking the Capitol and threatening our democracy. We need to know who organized, planned, paid for, and received funds related to those events, as well as what communications organizers had with officials in the White House and Congress," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the committee, said in a statement.
Budowich was a senior adviser for the Trump 2020 campaign, specifically working with Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle. He is a longtime right wing political operative -- working as senior communications adviser for Ron Desantis during his successful campaign for governor of Florida in 2018 and once served as executive director of the Tea Party Express.

The committee might have particular interest in Budowich's connection to Guilfoyle. The former Fox News personality played a big role in the planning and preparation of the January 6 rallies.
Stone, Jones, Stockton and Lawrence also have longstanding ties to Trump ally Steve Bannon, who is awaiting trial on contempt of Congress charges stemming from his refusal to cooperate with a subpoena from the committee.
Both Stockton and Lawrence were involved in Bannon's "We Build the Wall" crowdfunding group, and in August 2020, federal agents raided their recreational vehicle in Mesquite, Nevada, hours before prosecutors unsealed charges accusing others involved in the group, including Bannon.
Meanwhile, the origins of the "Stop the Steal" slogan can be traced to Stone, a self-described "dirty trickster" whose 40-month prison sentence for seven felonies was cut short by Trump's commutation last July.
Stone was involved in the movement's rise to prominence around the 2020 election.
Along with Bannon and Jones, Stone was also among the most notable voices pushing conspiracy theories in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election.
At the time, Stone appeared on Jones' far-right radio show to trumpet groundless claims that Joe Biden was trying to steal the election, and Bannon echoed similar conspiracy theories on his podcast, calling the election "a mass fraud."
In March, CNN reported that police in Washington, DC, were investigating an allegation that Jones threatened to push another pro-Trump political organizer off of an event stage in December, according to people familiar with the incident.
The allegation was filed with DC police by Kylie Jane Kremer, executive director of the organization Women for America First, a group that helped organize a series of post-election rallies, including one in a park south of the White House that preceded the Capitol riot on January 6.
Kremer was previously subpoenaed by the select committee.
The alleged threat occurred outside the Willard InterContinental hotel, located about two blocks from the White House, according to the police report. The Willard served as an election-related "command center" for Trump allies around January 6, and the committee has expressed significant interest in learning more about what was happening there at that time.


CONTINUED:
New January 6 committee subpoenas issued for 5 Trump allies including Roger Stone and Alex Jones - CNNPolitics

 

[darth frosty]

 

[lightbright]

Jan. 6 Committee Issues New Subpoenas To Members Of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers

​

 

[phanatic]

​

He looks like the king of homeless people.

 

[lightbright]

He looks like the king of homeless people.

He looks like an ad for Trader Joes/Bass Pro Shops/Bush's Baked beans



.

 

[Pack Rat]

They will do what they do best....drag this out in the courts until they win the house back in the midterms...

 

[darth frosty]

 

[easy_b]

Oh it’s getting very juicy now

 

[easy_b]

 

[darth frosty]

 

[phanatic]

Can't wait for the excuse cyclone that will accompany this. Secret democrats, deep state, Antifa...anything to not take blame for encouraging what happened on the 6th.

 

[lightbright]

Meadows reaches initial cooperation deal with Jan. 6 committee

Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has reached an initial deal to cooperate with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, providing documents and agreeing to testify before the panel.
“Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney. He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition,” Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said Tuesday.
“The Select 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.”


CONTINUED:
Meadows reaches initial cooperation deal with Jan. 6 committee | TheHill

 

[lightbright]

Capitol riot committee recommends criminal contempt charges against ex-Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark

Democratic chairman says former DoJ official was ‘central’ to Trump’s efforts to find ‘a way to get around the constitution’ and remain in power despite losing election

Acting Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Clark speaks as he stands next to Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Oct. 21, 2020

The House select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection voted unanimously to approve a criminal contempt of Congress resolution against Jeffrey Clark, the former Department of Justice official who tried to push the then-acting attorney general to help install former president Donald Trump in the White House for a second term against voters’ wishes.


Capitol riot committee recommends criminal contempt charges against ex-Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark | The Independent

 

[lightbright]

Eastman takes the Fifth with Jan. 6 committee
The attorney, who helped former President Donald Trump contest the 2020 election, asserted his right against self-incrimination in a Dec. 1 letter to the Capitol riot panel.

John Eastman testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. Eastman spoke during President Donald Trump's Washington, D.C., rally before the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

John Eastman, the attorney who helped former President Donald Trump pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election, has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a letter he delivered to the Jan. 6 committee explaining his decision not to testify.

“Dr. Eastman hereby asserts his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself in response to your subpoena,” his attorney, Charles Burnham, wrote in a letter to Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) dated Dec. 1.

“Members of this very Committee have openly spoken of making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice and described the Committee’s work in terms of determining “guilt or innocence,” Burnham continues. “Dr. Eastman has a more than reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to this subpoena will be used in an attempt to mount a criminal investigation against him.”

Eastman’s decision is an extraordinary assertion by someone who worked closely with Trump to attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. He met with Trump and pushed state legislative leaders to reject Biden’s victory in a handful of swing states and appoint alternate electors to the Electoral College, effectively denying Biden’s victory.



CONTINUED:
Eastman takes the Fifth with Jan. 6 committee - POLITICO

 

[lightbright]

Jeffrey Clark was gonna testify tomorrow and plead the fifth.... then he found out that there was White House meta data in that draft letter that indicates some involvement with the White House Communications Agency and the drafting or preparation of that letter, suggesting that it was authored by that agency. Now he has a medical condition and can't appear..... the pot just went from simmer.... to full boil for him....



Jeffrey Clark's deposition postponed until December 16

(CNN)The January 6 select committee announced Friday that the deposition with Jeffrey Clark originally scheduled for Saturday has been postponed until December 16 due to a "medical condition that precludes his participation in tomorrow's meeting."
"Through his attorney, Mr. Clark has informed the Select Committee of a medical condition that precludes his participation in tomorrow's meeting and he has provided ample evidence of his claim. Chairman Thompson has agreed to postpone the deposition until December 16th. Chairman Thompson wishes Mr. Clark well," select committee spokesperson Tim Mulvey said in a statement.
On Wednesday, the committee approved a report to hold Clark, a former top Justice Department official during the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress for defying his subpoena by refusing to answer questions during a recent deposition and failing to hand over documents to the panel.

But the committee said it was giving Clark another opportunity to appear, on Saturday, in light of a new letter he sent to the panel saying he intends to claim Fifth Amendment protection.

With Clark expected to invoke those protections against self-incrimination, it's unclear how much information the committee will receive or if it will be satisfied with his level of participation.
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, had earlier told CNN of the scheduled deposition, "I can't anticipate what he'll say."

"I just know his lawyer has represented the fact that his client plans to take" the Fifth Amendment, Thompson said. "If he plans to take it, he'll have to take it each and every time we ask him a question."
The documents Clark was asked to hand over included communications with former President Donald Trump, senior members of the White House, Trump's reelection campaign, John Eastman -- a conservative lawyer working with the then-President's legal team -- and state officials.
In the committee's 22-page report for criminal contempt charges, the panel said Clark had violated Justice Department policy when he met with Trump to discuss efforts to overturn the 2020 election and, further, held conversations with members of Congress about delegitimizing the election.
The report states that the committee communicated with Clark's attorneys multiple times, even allowing an extension for them to produce records and appear for a deposition. But when Clark did finally appear, the committee said, his attorney handed the panel's staff a 12-page letter objecting to almost every question on the grounds that Trump was entitled to confidential legal advice -- what Clark's attorney called a "sacred trust."
If Clark answers the committee's questions in the rescheduled deposition by pleading the Fifth Amendment, the panel will likely have to stop the process of holding him in criminal contempt. If Clark continues to stonewall the committee, and invoke the Fifth Amendment in ways the committee deems illegitimate, the panel will likely proceed with a floor vote.
When asked if there is still a very good chance they move to criminal contempt after the rescheduled deposition, Thompson replied, "Uh, yes, absolutely."
Committee member Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, said he wouldn't outline the specific questions they plan to ask Clark but added, "There will be whole categories of questions that we'll have for him, which there would be no factual basis for him to conclude it could incriminate him."
"That will be my expectation if he's operating in good faith," Schiff said.
Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, also a member of the committee, said they are asking Clark about his work at the Justice Department.
"And so if he feels he needs to use the Fifth Amendment while he was working for the government, while I was the government's lawyer, that's pretty shocking," Aguilar said. "But that's something that we'll consider and we don't take it lightly."

Jeffrey Clark's deposition postponed until December 16 - CNNPolitics

 

[easy_b]

 

[lightbright]

Trump loses appeal to block Jan. 6 probe from getting White House records

KEY POINTS

• A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to block a House committee from getting White House records related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
• The decision comes a day after Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows sued the committee in Washington federal court seeking to void two subpoenas related to him from the same select committee.
• Trump is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to block a House select committee from getting White House records related to the invasion of the Capitol.

The decision comes a day after Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows sued in Washington federal court, seeking to void two subpoenas related to him that had been issued by the committee as part of its investigation into the Jan. 6 riot.




At issue in both cases is Trump’s claim that many of the materials sought by the select committee — including a tranche of White House records and testimony from his former staffers — are covered by executive privilege, the legal doctrine that protects White House communications from being made public. The Jan. 6 committee objected to Trump’s claims, and President Joe Biden waived privilege over the disputed records.

In a 68-page opinion, a panel of three judges on the U>S> Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said that Trump “has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents.”

Trump is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

A lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the ruling. A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately provide comment.




Trump loses appeal to block Jan. 6 probe from getting White House records (cnbc.com)

 

[darth frosty]

 

[LegendOfLedo]

***Bump*** For the recent news and events. What are the intellectuals of the board thinking with the new developments and text messages released? I believe Meadows is beyond fucked.