Rep. Jim Jordan becomes the second member of Congress to say he won't cooperate with the January 6 select committee investigation
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
- Thread starter lightbright
- Start date
So what does that mean? They should go to prison
Jan. 6 Committee Wants To Speak With Rudy Giuliani
Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany met with January 6 committee
(CNN)Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday appeared before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The meeting was virtual. McEnany, who worked in the Trump White House and was a spokesperson for Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, was initially subpoenaed in November.
McEnany was absent Wednesday from "Outnumbered," the lunch hour show she usually co-hosts on Fox.
The committee has requested a significant number of McEnany's records from the National Archives, which are still tied up in court because former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to block the committee's access to his White House records.
According to a disclosure from the National Archives made in court in October, the committee is seeking "629 pages from multiple binders containing proposed talking points for the Press Secretary, interspersed with a relatively small number of related statements and documents, principally relating to allegations of voter fraud, election security, and other topics concerning the 2020 election."
The committee's original subpoena of McEnany shows a specific interest in her public statements related to spreading misinformation about the 2020 election results. As press secretary, McEnany served in one of the most highly visible roles in the Trump administration. She spoke not only from the White House lectern, but also from the campaign headquarters as a spokesperson.
The committee specifically pointed to many of her public statements as contributing to the belief there was something wrong with the election.
Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the committee, said in a statement at the time of the release of McEnany's subpoena, along with other former White House officials, "We need to know precisely what role the former President and his aides played in efforts to stop the counting of the electoral votes and if they were in touch with anyone outside the White House attempting to overturn the outcome of the election."
Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany met with January 6 committee, sources say - CNNPolitics
(CNN)Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday appeared before the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The meeting was virtual. McEnany, who worked in the Trump White House and was a spokesperson for Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, was initially subpoenaed in November.
McEnany was absent Wednesday from "Outnumbered," the lunch hour show she usually co-hosts on Fox.
The committee has requested a significant number of McEnany's records from the National Archives, which are still tied up in court because former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to block the committee's access to his White House records.
According to a disclosure from the National Archives made in court in October, the committee is seeking "629 pages from multiple binders containing proposed talking points for the Press Secretary, interspersed with a relatively small number of related statements and documents, principally relating to allegations of voter fraud, election security, and other topics concerning the 2020 election."
The committee's original subpoena of McEnany shows a specific interest in her public statements related to spreading misinformation about the 2020 election results. As press secretary, McEnany served in one of the most highly visible roles in the Trump administration. She spoke not only from the White House lectern, but also from the campaign headquarters as a spokesperson.
The committee specifically pointed to many of her public statements as contributing to the belief there was something wrong with the election.
Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the committee, said in a statement at the time of the release of McEnany's subpoena, along with other former White House officials, "We need to know precisely what role the former President and his aides played in efforts to stop the counting of the electoral votes and if they were in touch with anyone outside the White House attempting to overturn the outcome of the election."
Former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany met with January 6 committee, sources say - CNNPolitics
January 6 committee wants to ask McCarthy about Trump's state of mind during and after riot
(CNN)The House select committee investigating the January 6 riot is asking Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, to voluntarily provide information to the panel, including details about former President Donald Trump's state of mind during the Capitol attack and in the weeks after, according to a new letter released Wednesday.
The request marks a significant moment in the ongoing investigation as the committee is now seeking cooperation from the top Republican in the House.
"We also must learn about how the President's plans for January 6th came together, and all the other ways he attempted to alter the results of the election," wrote committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi. "For example, in advance of January 6th, you reportedly explained to Mark Meadows and the former President that objections to the certification of the electoral votes on January 6th 'was doomed to fail.' "
The letter cites several previous comments made by McCarthy following the riot, including interviews where he discussed his conversations with Trump as the violence unfolded.
"As is readily apparent, all of this information bears directly on President Trump's state of mind during the January 6th attack as the violence was underway," it states, offering a window into what the committee wants to discuss with the minority leader.
The panel also makes clear it wants to question McCarthy about his communications with Trump, White House staff and others in the week after the January 6 attack, "particularly regarding President Trump's state of mind at that time."
"The Select Committee has contemporaneous text messages from multiple witnesses identifying significant concerns following January 6th held by White House staff and the President's supporters regarding President Trump's state of mind and his ongoing conduct. It appears that you had one or more conversations with the President during this period," the letter states.
"It appears that you may also have discussed with President Trump the potential he would face a censure resolution, impeachment, or removal under the 25th Amendment. It also appears that you may have identified other possible options, including President Trump's immediate resignation from office," it adds.
In the letter, the committee traces McCarthy's public comments since the attack and questions whether Trump pressured him to change his tone when the pair met in late January 2021.
"Your public statements regarding January 6th have changed markedly since you met with Trump," the panel said in the letter. "At that meeting, or at any other time, did President Trump or his representatives discuss or suggest what you should say publicly, during the impeachment trial (if called as a witness), or in any later investigation about your conversations with him on January 6th?"
The panel cites multiple public reports about the heated exchange between McCarthy and Trump as the attack unfolded that it wants to learn more about.
CNN previously reported about an expletive-laced phone call between McCarthy and Trump while the Capitol was under attack on January 6 where Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
The letter also cites an interview where McCarthy told a local California news outlet that on January 6 he had a "very heated" conversation with Trump where he told the then-President to "get help" to the Capitol.
McCarthy's office did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. In May 2021, McCarthy told CNN's Manu Raju that "Sure," he'd be willing to testify about his conversations with Trump on January 6 if he were asked to by an outside commission.
McCarthy is the third Republican lawmaker whom the committee has requested cooperation from, following letters to Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Jim Jordan of Ohio in recent weeks. Both Perry and Jordan have indicated they will not cooperate with the committee voluntarily, and CNN reported earlier Wednesday that even the panel is currently weighing its options to get members to comply.
At issue is determining a path that would give them the best opportunity to obtain the information and interviews they are looking for by using the powers of the committee at their disposal.
The committee is wrestling with whether they have the constitutional right to subpoena their fellow members, and if they do, if they have an enforcement mechanism in place that will ultimately lead to cooperation.
But Wednesday's letter makes clear that the committee will continue to seek information from their fellow members even as they deliberate what to do if Republicans continue to resist their overtures.
Thompson separately told CNN that the committee specifically wants to hear from McCarthy about why he gave a floor speech on January 13 where he said that Trump "bears responsibility" for the January 6 attack.
"We need to get him before the committee to just say, why did you make that statement?" Thompson said. "We'd like to know, did you call the White House and say, 'hey, what's going on?' We don't know. We think it's significant because a few days later, he was on the floor, saying that the President bared some responsibility for what occurred. And so we'd like to know, where did you arrive at that decision?"
Thompson said that the committee does not currently have phone records from McCarthy or anything other than his public statements, and the decision of whether the panel will ask the minority leader to turn over documents is "to be determined."
Asked whether the panel would subpoena McCarthy if he refuses to accept its voluntary request, Thompson said, "We'll consider it."
January 6 committee asks Kevin McCarthy to voluntarily provide information to probe - CNNPolitics
(CNN)The House select committee investigating the January 6 riot is asking Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, to voluntarily provide information to the panel, including details about former President Donald Trump's state of mind during the Capitol attack and in the weeks after, according to a new letter released Wednesday.
The request marks a significant moment in the ongoing investigation as the committee is now seeking cooperation from the top Republican in the House.
"We also must learn about how the President's plans for January 6th came together, and all the other ways he attempted to alter the results of the election," wrote committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi. "For example, in advance of January 6th, you reportedly explained to Mark Meadows and the former President that objections to the certification of the electoral votes on January 6th 'was doomed to fail.' "
The letter cites several previous comments made by McCarthy following the riot, including interviews where he discussed his conversations with Trump as the violence unfolded.
"As is readily apparent, all of this information bears directly on President Trump's state of mind during the January 6th attack as the violence was underway," it states, offering a window into what the committee wants to discuss with the minority leader.
The panel also makes clear it wants to question McCarthy about his communications with Trump, White House staff and others in the week after the January 6 attack, "particularly regarding President Trump's state of mind at that time."
"The Select Committee has contemporaneous text messages from multiple witnesses identifying significant concerns following January 6th held by White House staff and the President's supporters regarding President Trump's state of mind and his ongoing conduct. It appears that you had one or more conversations with the President during this period," the letter states.
"It appears that you may also have discussed with President Trump the potential he would face a censure resolution, impeachment, or removal under the 25th Amendment. It also appears that you may have identified other possible options, including President Trump's immediate resignation from office," it adds.
In the letter, the committee traces McCarthy's public comments since the attack and questions whether Trump pressured him to change his tone when the pair met in late January 2021.
"Your public statements regarding January 6th have changed markedly since you met with Trump," the panel said in the letter. "At that meeting, or at any other time, did President Trump or his representatives discuss or suggest what you should say publicly, during the impeachment trial (if called as a witness), or in any later investigation about your conversations with him on January 6th?"
The panel cites multiple public reports about the heated exchange between McCarthy and Trump as the attack unfolded that it wants to learn more about.
CNN previously reported about an expletive-laced phone call between McCarthy and Trump while the Capitol was under attack on January 6 where Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
The letter also cites an interview where McCarthy told a local California news outlet that on January 6 he had a "very heated" conversation with Trump where he told the then-President to "get help" to the Capitol.
McCarthy's office did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. In May 2021, McCarthy told CNN's Manu Raju that "Sure," he'd be willing to testify about his conversations with Trump on January 6 if he were asked to by an outside commission.
McCarthy is the third Republican lawmaker whom the committee has requested cooperation from, following letters to Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Jim Jordan of Ohio in recent weeks. Both Perry and Jordan have indicated they will not cooperate with the committee voluntarily, and CNN reported earlier Wednesday that even the panel is currently weighing its options to get members to comply.
At issue is determining a path that would give them the best opportunity to obtain the information and interviews they are looking for by using the powers of the committee at their disposal.
The committee is wrestling with whether they have the constitutional right to subpoena their fellow members, and if they do, if they have an enforcement mechanism in place that will ultimately lead to cooperation.
But Wednesday's letter makes clear that the committee will continue to seek information from their fellow members even as they deliberate what to do if Republicans continue to resist their overtures.
Thompson separately told CNN that the committee specifically wants to hear from McCarthy about why he gave a floor speech on January 13 where he said that Trump "bears responsibility" for the January 6 attack.
"We need to get him before the committee to just say, why did you make that statement?" Thompson said. "We'd like to know, did you call the White House and say, 'hey, what's going on?' We don't know. We think it's significant because a few days later, he was on the floor, saying that the President bared some responsibility for what occurred. And so we'd like to know, where did you arrive at that decision?"
Thompson said that the committee does not currently have phone records from McCarthy or anything other than his public statements, and the decision of whether the panel will ask the minority leader to turn over documents is "to be determined."
Asked whether the panel would subpoena McCarthy if he refuses to accept its voluntary request, Thompson said, "We'll consider it."
January 6 committee asks Kevin McCarthy to voluntarily provide information to probe - CNNPolitics
Capitol attack panel subpoenas Google, Facebook and Twitter for digital records
Facebook is part of Meta and Google is part of Alphabet.
The move by the select committee suggests the panel is ramping up its examination of social media posts and messages that could provide evidentiary evidence as to who might have been in contact with the Trump White House around 6 January, one source said.
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in a statement that he authorized the four subpoenas since those platforms were used to communicate plans about the Capitol attack, and yet the social media companies ignored earlier requests.
The subpoenas to the four social media companies were the last straw for the select committee after repeated engagements with the platforms went unheeded, Thompson said in letters that amounted to stinging rebukes over the platforms’ lack of cooperation.
Thompson said in the subpoena letter to Twitter that the select committee is interested in obtaining key documents House investigators suspect the company is withholding that could shed light on how users used the platform to plan and execute the Capitol attack.
The chairman said the select committee was interested in records from Reddit, since the “r/The_Donald” subreddit that eventually migrated to a website of the same name hosted significant discussion and planning related to the capitol attack.
Thompson said House investigators were seeking materials from Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube, which was a platform for significant communications by its users who played key roles in the Capitol attack.
The select committee has been examining digital fingerprints left by the Trump White House and other individuals connected to the Capitol attack since the outset of the investigation, on everything from posts that show geolocations to metadata, the source said.
To that end, the select committee issued data preservation requests to 35 telecom and social media companies in August, demanding that they save the materials in the event the panel’s technical team required their release, the source said.
The Guardian first reported that month that the select committee, among other individuals, had requested the telecom and social media firms preserve the records of former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in addition to a dozen House Republicans.
The select committee gave the social media companies a 27 January deadline to comply with the subpoenas, but it was not clear whether the organizations would comply. A spokesperson for Twitter and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House minority leader who refused a request for cooperation late on Wednesday by the select committee, has previously threatened telecom and social media companies from complying with the bipartisan panel’s investigation.
“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law,” McCarthy said at the time in August. “A Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.”
Capitol attack panel subpoenas Google, Facebook and Twitter for digital records | US Capitol attack | The Guardian
- Select committee seeks records related to January 6 attack
- Move suggests panel is ramping up inquiry of social media posts
Facebook is part of Meta and Google is part of Alphabet.
The move by the select committee suggests the panel is ramping up its examination of social media posts and messages that could provide evidentiary evidence as to who might have been in contact with the Trump White House around 6 January, one source said.
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in a statement that he authorized the four subpoenas since those platforms were used to communicate plans about the Capitol attack, and yet the social media companies ignored earlier requests.
The subpoenas to the four social media companies were the last straw for the select committee after repeated engagements with the platforms went unheeded, Thompson said in letters that amounted to stinging rebukes over the platforms’ lack of cooperation.
Thompson said in the subpoena letter to Twitter that the select committee is interested in obtaining key documents House investigators suspect the company is withholding that could shed light on how users used the platform to plan and execute the Capitol attack.
The chairman said the select committee was interested in records from Reddit, since the “r/The_Donald” subreddit that eventually migrated to a website of the same name hosted significant discussion and planning related to the capitol attack.
Thompson said House investigators were seeking materials from Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube, which was a platform for significant communications by its users who played key roles in the Capitol attack.
The select committee has been examining digital fingerprints left by the Trump White House and other individuals connected to the Capitol attack since the outset of the investigation, on everything from posts that show geolocations to metadata, the source said.
To that end, the select committee issued data preservation requests to 35 telecom and social media companies in August, demanding that they save the materials in the event the panel’s technical team required their release, the source said.
The Guardian first reported that month that the select committee, among other individuals, had requested the telecom and social media firms preserve the records of former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in addition to a dozen House Republicans.
The select committee gave the social media companies a 27 January deadline to comply with the subpoenas, but it was not clear whether the organizations would comply. A spokesperson for Twitter and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House minority leader who refused a request for cooperation late on Wednesday by the select committee, has previously threatened telecom and social media companies from complying with the bipartisan panel’s investigation.
“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law,” McCarthy said at the time in August. “A Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.”
Capitol attack panel subpoenas Google, Facebook and Twitter for digital records | US Capitol attack | The Guardian
Giuliani, other pro-Trump lawyers hit with subpoenas over Jan. 6 attack
WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - The congressional committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol issued subpoenas on Tuesday to three lawyers who joined former President Donald Trump's unsuccessful attempt to overturn his election defeat: Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
The House of Representatives committee demanded the pro-Trump lawyers hand over documents and sit for depositions on Feb. 8.
Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee's chairman, said in a statement that the panel expects the lawyers to join the nearly 400 witnesses who have spoken with the Select Committee as part of its investigation into the causes of the deadly attack by Trump supporters.
Giuliani, other pro-Trump lawyers hit with subpoenas over Jan. 6 attack | Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - The congressional committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol issued subpoenas on Tuesday to three lawyers who joined former President Donald Trump's unsuccessful attempt to overturn his election defeat: Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
The House of Representatives committee demanded the pro-Trump lawyers hand over documents and sit for depositions on Feb. 8.
Representative Bennie Thompson, the committee's chairman, said in a statement that the panel expects the lawyers to join the nearly 400 witnesses who have spoken with the Select Committee as part of its investigation into the causes of the deadly attack by Trump supporters.
Giuliani, other pro-Trump lawyers hit with subpoenas over Jan. 6 attack | Reuters
Supreme Court won't block release of Trump documents to Jan 6 committee
The panel is seeking a trove of documents, including records of communication between the White House and the Justice Department leading up to the attack on the Capitol.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump's effort to stop the National Archives from giving the House Jan. 6 committee hundreds of pages of documents from his time in the White House.
The court declined to take up his appeal of two lower court rulings that said the documents must be turned over. Only Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should have grantedTrump’s motion to block the handover of the documents.
The Supreme Court’s action ends the legal battle that began in October, when Trump filed a lawsuit seeking to block the National Archives from revealing documents that he argued should be shielded by executive privilege.
His lawyers urged the court to take the case because it raised novel questions about the extent of a former president's privilege. They said the Supreme Court "has not explained the standard necessary to invade the privilege.".
Lower court rulings directing the National Archives to hand the material over to Congress "effectively gut the ability of former presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often, as is the case here, a political rival," they said.
Trump’s legal team also said the committee lacked a proper legislative reason for seeking the documents and was instead simply trying to find evidence that could be used to prosecute the former president. They cited a statement by the committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who told The Washington Post that the then-president's initial failure to try to stop the riot could be a reason to refer the issue to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.
The committee, the lawyers said, is "seeking any excuse to refer a political rival for criminal charges."
The House committee asked for a trove of documents related to the events surrounding the riot, including records of communication between the White House and the Justice Department leading up to Jan. 6. Trump objected, asserting executive privilege, but President Joe Biden declined to back up that assertion. Instead, he directed the National Archives to hand over the material.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that although Trump retained some limited authority to claim executive privilege, it wasn't strong enough to overcome Biden's decision that Congress has a legitimate need for the material. The court cited a 1977 Supreme Court decision in a dispute between former President Richard Nixon and the National Archives, which said the incumbent president is in the best position to decide whether the privilege should be asserted.
As long as the committee cites at least one legislative purpose for the documents, that is enough to justify the request, the appeals court said, even though individual members have suggested they may have partisan political motives in seeking it.
Urging the Supreme Court not to take up the Trump appeal, the committee said it has a proper purpose because its work will "lead to specific legislative recommendations designed to prevent any future attacks on the democratic institutions of the Republic."
The panel also discounted Trump's claim that forcing the National Archives to hand over Oval Office documents could discourage future presidential aides from providing candid advice. That concern is misguided, the committee said, because the conduct under investigation goes far beyond the typical deliberations concerning a president's official duties.
Leaving the lower court rulings intact would not encourage future presidents to facilitate congressional attempts to get White House documents involving their predecessors for partisan political reasons, the committee said.
"The fact that every president will someday be a former president provides an incentive to ensure that the privilege is not eroded or abused," it said.
The committee urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying it needed the documents to help guide its investigation.
Supreme Court won't block release of Trump documents to Jan 6 committee (nbcnews.com)
.
The panel is seeking a trove of documents, including records of communication between the White House and the Justice Department leading up to the attack on the Capitol.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected former President Donald Trump's effort to stop the National Archives from giving the House Jan. 6 committee hundreds of pages of documents from his time in the White House.
The court declined to take up his appeal of two lower court rulings that said the documents must be turned over. Only Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should have grantedTrump’s motion to block the handover of the documents.
The Supreme Court’s action ends the legal battle that began in October, when Trump filed a lawsuit seeking to block the National Archives from revealing documents that he argued should be shielded by executive privilege.
His lawyers urged the court to take the case because it raised novel questions about the extent of a former president's privilege. They said the Supreme Court "has not explained the standard necessary to invade the privilege.".
Lower court rulings directing the National Archives to hand the material over to Congress "effectively gut the ability of former presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often, as is the case here, a political rival," they said.
Trump’s legal team also said the committee lacked a proper legislative reason for seeking the documents and was instead simply trying to find evidence that could be used to prosecute the former president. They cited a statement by the committee’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who told The Washington Post that the then-president's initial failure to try to stop the riot could be a reason to refer the issue to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.
The committee, the lawyers said, is "seeking any excuse to refer a political rival for criminal charges."
The House committee asked for a trove of documents related to the events surrounding the riot, including records of communication between the White House and the Justice Department leading up to Jan. 6. Trump objected, asserting executive privilege, but President Joe Biden declined to back up that assertion. Instead, he directed the National Archives to hand over the material.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that although Trump retained some limited authority to claim executive privilege, it wasn't strong enough to overcome Biden's decision that Congress has a legitimate need for the material. The court cited a 1977 Supreme Court decision in a dispute between former President Richard Nixon and the National Archives, which said the incumbent president is in the best position to decide whether the privilege should be asserted.
As long as the committee cites at least one legislative purpose for the documents, that is enough to justify the request, the appeals court said, even though individual members have suggested they may have partisan political motives in seeking it.
Urging the Supreme Court not to take up the Trump appeal, the committee said it has a proper purpose because its work will "lead to specific legislative recommendations designed to prevent any future attacks on the democratic institutions of the Republic."
The panel also discounted Trump's claim that forcing the National Archives to hand over Oval Office documents could discourage future presidential aides from providing candid advice. That concern is misguided, the committee said, because the conduct under investigation goes far beyond the typical deliberations concerning a president's official duties.
Leaving the lower court rulings intact would not encourage future presidents to facilitate congressional attempts to get White House documents involving their predecessors for partisan political reasons, the committee said.
"The fact that every president will someday be a former president provides an incentive to ensure that the privilege is not eroded or abused," it said.
The committee urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying it needed the documents to help guide its investigation.
Supreme Court won't block release of Trump documents to Jan 6 committee (nbcnews.com)
.
Last edited:
I figured that …. The Supreme Court is very conservative but they know what can happen if they were to block the documents and it wouldn’t be pretty
JAN. 6 COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON SCOTUS ACTION
"The Supreme Court's action tonight is a victory for the rule of law and American democracy, The Select Committee has already begun to receive records that the former President had hoped to keep hidden and we look forward to additional productions regarding this important information.
Our work goes forward to uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes. We will not be deterred in our effort to get answers for the American people, make legislative recommendations to strengthen our democracy, and help ensure nothing like that day ever happens again."
CHAIRMAN BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS)
VICE CHAIR LIZ CHENEY (R-WY)
.
"The Supreme Court's action tonight is a victory for the rule of law and American democracy, The Select Committee has already begun to receive records that the former President had hoped to keep hidden and we look forward to additional productions regarding this important information.
Our work goes forward to uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes. We will not be deterred in our effort to get answers for the American people, make legislative recommendations to strengthen our democracy, and help ensure nothing like that day ever happens again."
CHAIRMAN BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS)
VICE CHAIR LIZ CHENEY (R-WY)
.
Thread by @DirkSchwenk on Thread Reader App
@DirkSchwenk: BREAKING: Something is REALLY up with the DC National Guard response to the Capitol on January 6. A thread. Let's start at the beginning. The DC National Guard is the only national guard that takes...…
threadreaderapp.com
BREAKING: Something is REALLY up with the DC National Guard response to the Capitol on January 6. A thread.
Let's start at the beginning. The DC National Guard is the only national guard that takes its orders directly from the President of the United States. On Jan. 6, 2020, that person was Donald J. Trump. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_….
District of Columbia National Guard - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distr...d gave the U.S.,reports only to the president
Since Truman, the day to day activities of the DC Guard are delegated to the Secretary of Defense. That does not apply, however, when the guard is "on active emergency duty in the District of Columbia after being ordered to such duty pursuant to law." presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/exec…
On January 6, 2020, the ACTING Secretary of Defense was Christopher Miller whose Chief of Staff was Kash Patel - both credibly accused of being Trump toadies.
Miller was ordered by Trump on Jan 3 to "protect the demonstrators"; prohibited National Guard from deploying with weapons or armor without his orders; and withdrew immediate response authority from Gen. Walker, commander of DC Guard.
Christopher C. Miller - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Miller
According to DOD's timeline (which has been significantly criticized) Miller gave voice authorization for DC Guard to deploy at 4:32 PM. media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/20…
BUT WAIT "Miller, who was in the chain of command and reported directly to [DJT] testified under oath that the [DJT] never contacted him at any time on January 6th, and never, at any
time, issued him any order to deploy the National Guard."
And the J6C "has identified no evidence that President Trump issued any order, or
took any other action, to deploy the guard that day... nor ... any calls to the DOJ or other LE Agency to request deployment." january6th.house.gov/sites/democrat…
So ... the DC National Guard was deployed without authority of its Commander In Chief.
What should we make of that?
Liz Cheney appears to believe that Trump's failure to give the order was a felony. washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
The early reporting was that Pence gave the order. But Pence isn't in the chain of command.
Pence took lead as Trump initially resisted sending National Guard to CapitolVice President Mike Pence, not President Donald Trump, helped facilitate the decision to mobilize members of the DC National Guard Wednesday when violence at the US Capitol building started to escalat…https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html
Miller said it was a group effort: ""Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. We have fully activated the D.C. National Guard...
Army Sec confirmed that explanation: ""But as we worked through it, we ultimately made the determination about a half hour later to mobilize the entire DC National Guard. So, this has been incredibly fluid."
SO ... bottom line 1) DC National Guard deployed against Trump's orders; 2) the FBI/DOJ Swat or similar deployed without Trump's orders.
This could have been so much worse.
And what are we to make of Miller? Did he chicken out? Expect the mob to be reinforced? Why not say - I don't have orders - and just refuse to send in the DC Guard?
For those asking - the 25th Amend requires VP at minimum to transmit a written declaration (including others in cabinet?) that the POTUS is unable to discharge his duties. I can't believe that they could have kept that secret.
Some of the side conversations have made this point: it appears that Pence, Pelosi, Miller, SECARMY McCarthy, McConnell, Schumer and Hoyer got together and - in the absence of Trump protecting the Capitol as the CiC - gave the order. That takes some stones.
If Trump ever gets back in power, he will make each of those people pay to the greatest extent he possibly can.
One more: I would not describe this decision by Pence, etc. (assuming that's what happened) as unconstitutional or lawless ... all of these officials had an independent oath to uphold and protect the constitution, and I am sure they believed they were meeting that oath.
If you dig this kind of thing, I always appreciate a follow. I am not under the sway of any foreign power or evil billionaire. I just hope for a better future.
I've expanded on this thought experiment here:
Unroll available on Thread Reader
TRUMP W.H. DOCUMENTS TO BE HANDED OVER TO JAN. 6 COMMITTEE
Draft text of Presidential speech for 1/6
Presidential diaries, activity logs, notes, remarks related to 1/6
Talking points for Trump Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany related to 2020 election
Draft executive order on election integrity
Handwritten list of potential or scheduled briefings & calls concerning election issues
Draft proclaiming honoring deceased Capitol Police officers
.
Draft text of Presidential speech for 1/6
Presidential diaries, activity logs, notes, remarks related to 1/6
Talking points for Trump Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany related to 2020 election
Draft executive order on election integrity
Handwritten list of potential or scheduled briefings & calls concerning election issues
Draft proclaiming honoring deceased Capitol Police officers
.
this doesn't seem like anything to me
It depends on how it fits in with all the other pieces of the puzzle that they've already gotten
.
@dbluesun
Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines
The Jan. 6 select panel has obtained the draft order and a document titled "Remarks on National Healing." Both are reported here in detail for the first time.
Among the records that Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to shield from Jan. 6 investigators are a draft executive order that would have directed the defense secretary to seize voting machines and a document titled “Remarks on National Healing.”
POLITICO has reviewed both documents. The text of the draft executive order is published here for the first time.
The executive order — which also would have appointed a special counsel to probe the 2020 election — was never issued. The remarks are a draft of a speech Trump gave the next day. Together, the two documents point to the wildly divergent perspectives of White House advisers and allies during Trump’s frenetic final weeks in office.
It’s not clear who wrote either document. But the draft executive order is dated Dec. 16, 2020, and is consistent with proposals that lawyer Sidney Powell made to the then-president. On Dec. 18, 2020, Powell, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump administration lawyer Emily Newman, and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne met with Trump in the Oval Office.
In that meeting, Powell urged Trump to seize voting machines and to appointher as a special counsel to investigate the election, according to Axios.
A spokesperson for the House’s Jan. 6 select committee confirmed earlier Friday that the panel had received the last of the documents that Trump’s lawyers tried to keep under wraps and later declined to comment for this story on these two documents.
The draft executive order
The draft executive order shows that the weeks between Election Day and the Capitol attack could have been even more chaotic than they were. It credulously cites conspiracy theories about election fraud in Georgia and Michigan, as well as debunked notions about Dominion voting machines.
The order empowers the defense secretary to “seize, collect, retain and analyze all machines, equipment, electronically stored information, and material records required for retention under” a U.S. law that relates to preservation of election records. It also cites a lawsuit filed in 2017 against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Additionally, the draft order would have given the defense secretary 60 days to write an assessment of the 2020 election. That suggests it could have been a gambit to keep Trump in power until at least mid-February of 2021.
The full text of the never-issued executive order can be read here.
It opens by citing a host of presidential authorities to permit the steps that Trump would take, including the Constitution and Executive Order 12333, a well-known order governing the intelligence community. But the draft executive order also cites two classified documents: National Security Presidential Memoranda 13 and 21.
The existence of the first of those memoranda is publicly known, but the existence of the second has not been previously reported. NSPM 13 governs the Pentagon’s offensive cyber operations. According to a person with knowledge of the memoranda, 21 makes small adjustments to 13, and the two documents are viewed within the executive branch as a pair.
The fact that the draft executive order’s author knew about the existence of Memorandum 21 suggests that they had access to information about sensitive government secrets, the person told POLITICO.
The draft order also greenlit “the appointment of a Special Counsel to oversee this operation and institute all criminal and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected and provided all resources necessary to carry out her duties consistent with federal laws and the Constitution.”
To bolster its provisions, the draft order cites “the forensic report of the Antrim County, Michigan voting machines.” That report was produced by Russ Ramsland, who confused precincts in Minnesota for those in Michigan, according to the Washington Post. Michigan’s secretary of state, meanwhile, released an exhaustive report rebutting election conspiracy theories and concluding that none of the “known anomalies” in Antrim County’s November 2020 election were the result of any security breach.
"This draft order represents not only an abuse of emergency powers, but a total misunderstanding of them," said Liza Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice. "The order doesn’t even make the basic finding of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that would be necessary to trigger any action under [federal emergency powers law]. It’s the legal equivalent of a kid scrawling on the wall with crayons."
The draft remarks
The draft document labeled “Remarks on National Healing,” also now in the select panel’s possession, provides a first look at the remarks Trump would deliver the next day, which stand in jarring contrast to other rhetoric Trump employed at the time and continues to use when discussing the insurrection.
CONTINUED:
Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines - POLITICO
Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines
The Jan. 6 select panel has obtained the draft order and a document titled "Remarks on National Healing." Both are reported here in detail for the first time.
Among the records that Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to shield from Jan. 6 investigators are a draft executive order that would have directed the defense secretary to seize voting machines and a document titled “Remarks on National Healing.”
POLITICO has reviewed both documents. The text of the draft executive order is published here for the first time.
The executive order — which also would have appointed a special counsel to probe the 2020 election — was never issued. The remarks are a draft of a speech Trump gave the next day. Together, the two documents point to the wildly divergent perspectives of White House advisers and allies during Trump’s frenetic final weeks in office.
It’s not clear who wrote either document. But the draft executive order is dated Dec. 16, 2020, and is consistent with proposals that lawyer Sidney Powell made to the then-president. On Dec. 18, 2020, Powell, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump administration lawyer Emily Newman, and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne met with Trump in the Oval Office.
In that meeting, Powell urged Trump to seize voting machines and to appointher as a special counsel to investigate the election, according to Axios.
A spokesperson for the House’s Jan. 6 select committee confirmed earlier Friday that the panel had received the last of the documents that Trump’s lawyers tried to keep under wraps and later declined to comment for this story on these two documents.
The draft executive order
The draft executive order shows that the weeks between Election Day and the Capitol attack could have been even more chaotic than they were. It credulously cites conspiracy theories about election fraud in Georgia and Michigan, as well as debunked notions about Dominion voting machines.
The order empowers the defense secretary to “seize, collect, retain and analyze all machines, equipment, electronically stored information, and material records required for retention under” a U.S. law that relates to preservation of election records. It also cites a lawsuit filed in 2017 against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Additionally, the draft order would have given the defense secretary 60 days to write an assessment of the 2020 election. That suggests it could have been a gambit to keep Trump in power until at least mid-February of 2021.
The full text of the never-issued executive order can be read here.
It opens by citing a host of presidential authorities to permit the steps that Trump would take, including the Constitution and Executive Order 12333, a well-known order governing the intelligence community. But the draft executive order also cites two classified documents: National Security Presidential Memoranda 13 and 21.
The existence of the first of those memoranda is publicly known, but the existence of the second has not been previously reported. NSPM 13 governs the Pentagon’s offensive cyber operations. According to a person with knowledge of the memoranda, 21 makes small adjustments to 13, and the two documents are viewed within the executive branch as a pair.
The fact that the draft executive order’s author knew about the existence of Memorandum 21 suggests that they had access to information about sensitive government secrets, the person told POLITICO.
The draft order also greenlit “the appointment of a Special Counsel to oversee this operation and institute all criminal and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected and provided all resources necessary to carry out her duties consistent with federal laws and the Constitution.”
To bolster its provisions, the draft order cites “the forensic report of the Antrim County, Michigan voting machines.” That report was produced by Russ Ramsland, who confused precincts in Minnesota for those in Michigan, according to the Washington Post. Michigan’s secretary of state, meanwhile, released an exhaustive report rebutting election conspiracy theories and concluding that none of the “known anomalies” in Antrim County’s November 2020 election were the result of any security breach.
"This draft order represents not only an abuse of emergency powers, but a total misunderstanding of them," said Liza Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice. "The order doesn’t even make the basic finding of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that would be necessary to trigger any action under [federal emergency powers law]. It’s the legal equivalent of a kid scrawling on the wall with crayons."
The draft remarks
The draft document labeled “Remarks on National Healing,” also now in the select panel’s possession, provides a first look at the remarks Trump would deliver the next day, which stand in jarring contrast to other rhetoric Trump employed at the time and continues to use when discussing the insurrection.
CONTINUED:
Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines - POLITICO
this fucker skirted treason
i hope they can prove he incited an insurrection
Thread by @DirkSchwenk on Thread Reader App
@DirkSchwenk: BREAKING: Something is REALLY up with the DC National Guard response to the Capitol on January 6. A thread. Let's start at the beginning. The DC National Guard is the only national guard that takes...…
... bottom line 1) DC National Guard deployed against Trump's orders;...
There is just so much evidence that this was an actual coup attempt, but they just keep looking past it.
I've heard the excuse "yeah but they weren't successful" used a few times. If that's the standard, anyone in jail for attempted murder should be let out because they weren't successful.... bottom line 1) DC National Guard deployed against Trump's orders;...
There is just so much evidence that this was an actual coup attempt, but they just keep looking past it.
Yo these people better drop the hammer on Trump because this motherfucker tried to turn America into Russia.
They won't!
The January 6th committee is filled with people who voted against the voting rights amendment. How are they going to prosecute someone who fixed an election? Throw Biden's bonehead comment about election security mix and it's a done deal.
The DOJ prosecuting Trump is like a rapist judge prosecuting sexual harassment.
If the Republican senators on that panel had voted in favor of the John Lewis Bill it would have done more to prevent another January 6th then giving Trump and Giuliani 100 years each.
Will you stop posting that trash ass Palmer non sense
Jan. 6 committee chair says panel spoke to William Barr
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on Sunday said the panel has spoken to former U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Thompson was asked by host Margaret Brennan if the panel intended to speak with Barr regarding a draft of an executive order by the Trump administration that would have deployed the National Guard to seize voting machines.
"Well, yes, we do. To be honest with you, we've had conversations with the former attorney general already," Thompson said.
"We've talked with Department of Defense individuals. We are concerned that our military was part of this big lie on promoting that the election was false," he said. "So if you are using the military to potentially seize voting machines, even though it's a discussion, the public needs to know."
A spokesperson for Thompson’s office later clarified that the panel has spoken to Barr but not specifically about the proposed order.
Last week, Politico published a draft of the order that would have directed national defense forces to seize voting machines. The order was never issued, and the Jan. 6 committee had declined to comment on the documents at the time.
Brennan asked Thompson whether the Jan. 6 panel had evidence that someone in the U.S. military was working on this potential plan to seize voting machines.
"We have information that between the Department of Justice, a plan was put forward to potentially seize voting machines in the country and utilize Department of Defense assets to make that happen," Thompson said.
He clarified that there did not appear to have ever been an operational plan in place but said there was "reason enough to believe that it was being proposed."
Jan. 6 committee chair says panel spoke to William Barr | TheHill
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on Sunday said the panel has spoken to former U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Thompson was asked by host Margaret Brennan if the panel intended to speak with Barr regarding a draft of an executive order by the Trump administration that would have deployed the National Guard to seize voting machines.
"Well, yes, we do. To be honest with you, we've had conversations with the former attorney general already," Thompson said.
"We've talked with Department of Defense individuals. We are concerned that our military was part of this big lie on promoting that the election was false," he said. "So if you are using the military to potentially seize voting machines, even though it's a discussion, the public needs to know."
A spokesperson for Thompson’s office later clarified that the panel has spoken to Barr but not specifically about the proposed order.
Last week, Politico published a draft of the order that would have directed national defense forces to seize voting machines. The order was never issued, and the Jan. 6 committee had declined to comment on the documents at the time.
Brennan asked Thompson whether the Jan. 6 panel had evidence that someone in the U.S. military was working on this potential plan to seize voting machines.
"We have information that between the Department of Justice, a plan was put forward to potentially seize voting machines in the country and utilize Department of Defense assets to make that happen," Thompson said.
He clarified that there did not appear to have ever been an operational plan in place but said there was "reason enough to believe that it was being proposed."
Jan. 6 committee chair says panel spoke to William Barr | TheHill
Last edited:
This irrelevant racist ass cracker has waaaay too much free time on his hands..... he's running his pie hole on jet fuel again...
Newt Gingrich says that Jan. 6 Committee is 'basically a lynch mob' that could go to jail if Republicans get power
Gingrich, a Republican and Fox News contributor, made the comments during an appearance on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo."
"You have both with the Attorney General Garland and with this Select Committee of January 6th, people who have run amok," said Gingrich, who served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and unsuccessfully ran for president in 2012.
"They are breaking the rules. They are going after people in a way which is reminiscent of the British monarchy using closed-door systems that we outlawed deliberately because we had seen it. We knew what it was like. They are running over peoples' civil liberties," he added.
The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot has subpoenaed dozens of people close to former President Donald Trump, including Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell. Last week, the committee asked Ivanka Trump for her voluntary cooperation with its probe.
The committee is "literally just running over the law" and "pursuing innocent people," Gingrich said, claiming the committee is "basically a lynch mob" and that Garland is "misusing the FBI."
"What they need to understand is on January 4 next year, you're going to have a Republican majority in the House, and a Republican majority in the Senate," Gingrich predicted Sunday, adding "all these people who have been so tough and so mean and so nasty are gonna be delivered
CONTINUED:
Newt Gingrich says that Jan. 6 Committee is 'basically a lynch mob' that could go to jail if Republicans get power (yahoo.com)
Newt Gingrich says that Jan. 6 Committee is 'basically a lynch mob' that could go to jail if Republicans get power
- ForMer House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted Attorney General Merrick Garland and the committee investigating January 6.
- Gingrich said the select committee is "basically a lynch mob" that could go to jail if the GOP regains power.
- Gingrich, a Republican, served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and unsuccessfully ran for president in 2012.
Gingrich, a Republican and Fox News contributor, made the comments during an appearance on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo."
"You have both with the Attorney General Garland and with this Select Committee of January 6th, people who have run amok," said Gingrich, who served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and unsuccessfully ran for president in 2012.
"They are breaking the rules. They are going after people in a way which is reminiscent of the British monarchy using closed-door systems that we outlawed deliberately because we had seen it. We knew what it was like. They are running over peoples' civil liberties," he added.
The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot has subpoenaed dozens of people close to former President Donald Trump, including Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell. Last week, the committee asked Ivanka Trump for her voluntary cooperation with its probe.
The committee is "literally just running over the law" and "pursuing innocent people," Gingrich said, claiming the committee is "basically a lynch mob" and that Garland is "misusing the FBI."
"What they need to understand is on January 4 next year, you're going to have a Republican majority in the House, and a Republican majority in the Senate," Gingrich predicted Sunday, adding "all these people who have been so tough and so mean and so nasty are gonna be delivered
CONTINUED:
Newt Gingrich says that Jan. 6 Committee is 'basically a lynch mob' that could go to jail if Republicans get power (yahoo.com)
Republican Virginia attorney general fires January 6 investigator from university post
KEY POINTS
Jason Miyares, attorney general of Virginia, is sworn in during an inauguration ceremony for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin at Capitol Squarein Richmond, Virginia, U.S., on Saturday, Jan. 15, 2022.
The top staff investigator for the House Select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was fired from his position as the top attorney for the University of Virginia by the state’s newly elected Republican attorney general.
A spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares indicated that the removal of Timothy Heaphy from his position was routine. Heaphy was on leave while working for the Jan. 6 panel.
“It is common practice for an incoming administration to appoint new staff that share the philosophical and legal approach of the Attorney General,” Victoria LaCivita, a spokesperson for Miyares’ office, said in a statement to CNBC.
However, Democrats do not see it that way. Virginia state Sen. Scott Surovell told The New York Times, “This is purely payback for Jan. 6 — there is no other reason that makes any sense.”
A spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Virginia told CNBC that the organization viewed the attorney general’s decision to fire Heaphy as a “shameful attempt to whitewash the incidents of January 6th and appease his far-right allies.”
CONTINUED:
Republican Virginia attorney general fires January 6 investigator from university (cnbc.com)
KEY POINTS
- The top staff investigator for the House Jan. 6 panel was fired from his position at the University of Virginia by the state’s new GOP attorney general.
- A spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares indicated that the removal of Timothy Heaphy from his position was routine.
- A spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Virginia said the organization viewed the attorney general’s decision as a “shameful attempt to whitewash the incidents of January 6th and appease his far-right allies.”
The top staff investigator for the House Select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was fired from his position as the top attorney for the University of Virginia by the state’s newly elected Republican attorney general.
A spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares indicated that the removal of Timothy Heaphy from his position was routine. Heaphy was on leave while working for the Jan. 6 panel.
“It is common practice for an incoming administration to appoint new staff that share the philosophical and legal approach of the Attorney General,” Victoria LaCivita, a spokesperson for Miyares’ office, said in a statement to CNBC.
However, Democrats do not see it that way. Virginia state Sen. Scott Surovell told The New York Times, “This is purely payback for Jan. 6 — there is no other reason that makes any sense.”
A spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Virginia told CNBC that the organization viewed the attorney general’s decision to fire Heaphy as a “shameful attempt to whitewash the incidents of January 6th and appease his far-right allies.”
CONTINUED:
Republican Virginia attorney general fires January 6 investigator from university (cnbc.com)
i hope dude works harder and digs p dirt on virginiaRepublican Virginia attorney general fires January 6 investigator from university post
KEY POINTS
- The top staff investigator for the House Jan. 6 panel was fired from his position at the University of Virginia by the state’s new GOP attorney general.
- A spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares indicated that the removal of Timothy Heaphy from his position was routine.
- A spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Virginia said the organization viewed the attorney general’s decision as a “shameful attempt to whitewash the incidents of January 6th and appease his far-right allies.”
Jason Miyares, attorney general of Virginia, is sworn in during an inauguration ceremony for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin at Capitol Squarein Richmond, Virginia, U.S., on Saturday, Jan. 15, 2022.
The top staff investigator for the House Select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was fired from his position as the top attorney for the University of Virginia by the state’s newly elected Republican attorney general.
A spokesperson for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares indicated that the removal of Timothy Heaphy from his position was routine. Heaphy was on leave while working for the Jan. 6 panel.
“It is common practice for an incoming administration to appoint new staff that share the philosophical and legal approach of the Attorney General,” Victoria LaCivita, a spokesperson for Miyares’ office, said in a statement to CNBC.
However, Democrats do not see it that way. Virginia state Sen. Scott Surovell told The New York Times, “This is purely payback for Jan. 6 — there is no other reason that makes any sense.”
A spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Virginia told CNBC that the organization viewed the attorney general’s decision to fire Heaphy as a “shameful attempt to whitewash the incidents of January 6th and appease his far-right allies.”
CONTINUED:
Republican Virginia attorney general fires January 6 investigator from university (cnbc.com)
Alex Jones says he spoke to Jan. 6 committee and pled the Fifth 'almost 100 times'
The radio host and conspiracy theorist said the deposition "was extremely interesting to say the least."
Conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones said on his show Tuesday that he was deposed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6 and that he exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination "almost 100 times."
Jones said he testified remotely on Monday "and it was extremely interesting, to say the least." He said the committee's lawyers who asked him question were "polite, but they were dogged."
"The questions were overall pretty reasonable. And I wanted to answer the questions. But at the same time, it's a good thing I didn't, because I'm the type that tries to answer things correctly, even if I don't know all the answers, and they can then kind of claim that's perjury" he said.
Jones said that his lawyer "told me almost 100 times today during the interrogation, 'on advice of counsel I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.' And the media tells you that's because you're guilty, or because you're going to incriminate yourself but it's also just because it can be used to try to incriminate you and twist something against you."
In a letter to Jones last month, the committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the committee had evidence that Jones was involved in planning and funding the rally at the Ellipse immediately before the Jan. 6 riot and that he was supposed to lead rallygoers to the Capitol that day. Thompson also noted that Jones heavily promoted the rally on his shows, including referring to then-President Donald Trump's tweet that the rally would be "wild" and "one of the most historic events in American history."
Jones said on his show after the riot that the White House had asked him ahead of Jan. 6 to “lead the march” to the Capitol. He said Tuesday that his "White House connection" was Caroline Wren, a Republican operative and fundraiser who helped organize the rally but did not actually work for the White House.
"She was there that day behind the stage with the Trumps and the family," Jones said.
He added the committee was already aware of his interactions with Wren because "they have everything that's already on my phones."
"I saw my text messages to Caroline Wren and Cindy Chafian and some of the event organizers right there. So they already have everything and they already know I didn't do anything," he said. Wren and Chafian were issued subpoenas by the committee last year.
Despite his calls to action before the rally, Jones was seen on video outside the Capitol during the riot urging people not to be violent.
"By then we learned that there were a bunch of people inside the Capitol and that was so stupid and so dumb and we do not support that, I didn't support it that day. I don't support it now," he said Tuesday.
Jones' appearance before the committee was a bit of surprise, because he has a lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C. federal court challenging the panel's authority to subpoena him.
The suit came about a month after an unrelated court defeat for Jones. In November, a judge found him liable for damages in defamation suits brought by the parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. Jones had claimed that the shooting was a "giant hoax."
Alex Jones says he spoke to Jan. 6 committee and pled the Fifth 'almost 100 times' (nbcnews.com)
The radio host and conspiracy theorist said the deposition "was extremely interesting to say the least."
Conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones said on his show Tuesday that he was deposed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6 and that he exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination "almost 100 times."
Jones said he testified remotely on Monday "and it was extremely interesting, to say the least." He said the committee's lawyers who asked him question were "polite, but they were dogged."
"The questions were overall pretty reasonable. And I wanted to answer the questions. But at the same time, it's a good thing I didn't, because I'm the type that tries to answer things correctly, even if I don't know all the answers, and they can then kind of claim that's perjury" he said.
Jones said that his lawyer "told me almost 100 times today during the interrogation, 'on advice of counsel I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.' And the media tells you that's because you're guilty, or because you're going to incriminate yourself but it's also just because it can be used to try to incriminate you and twist something against you."
In a letter to Jones last month, the committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the committee had evidence that Jones was involved in planning and funding the rally at the Ellipse immediately before the Jan. 6 riot and that he was supposed to lead rallygoers to the Capitol that day. Thompson also noted that Jones heavily promoted the rally on his shows, including referring to then-President Donald Trump's tweet that the rally would be "wild" and "one of the most historic events in American history."
Jones said on his show after the riot that the White House had asked him ahead of Jan. 6 to “lead the march” to the Capitol. He said Tuesday that his "White House connection" was Caroline Wren, a Republican operative and fundraiser who helped organize the rally but did not actually work for the White House.
"She was there that day behind the stage with the Trumps and the family," Jones said.
He added the committee was already aware of his interactions with Wren because "they have everything that's already on my phones."
"I saw my text messages to Caroline Wren and Cindy Chafian and some of the event organizers right there. So they already have everything and they already know I didn't do anything," he said. Wren and Chafian were issued subpoenas by the committee last year.
Despite his calls to action before the rally, Jones was seen on video outside the Capitol during the riot urging people not to be violent.
"By then we learned that there were a bunch of people inside the Capitol and that was so stupid and so dumb and we do not support that, I didn't support it that day. I don't support it now," he said Tuesday.
Jones' appearance before the committee was a bit of surprise, because he has a lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C. federal court challenging the panel's authority to subpoena him.
The suit came about a month after an unrelated court defeat for Jones. In November, a judge found him liable for damages in defamation suits brought by the parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. Jones had claimed that the shooting was a "giant hoax."
Alex Jones says he spoke to Jan. 6 committee and pled the Fifth 'almost 100 times' (nbcnews.com)
JAN 6 COMMITTEE ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO 14 PEOPLE TIED TO FAKE ELECTORS PLOT
January 6 committee subpoenas individuals tied to fake elector push
CNN — The January 6 Select Committee has issued subpoenas for 14 Republicans from seven states who served on bogus slates of Trump electors in 2020 as part of the Trump campaign's scheme to subvert the Electoral College
The GOP leaders from the states served as "Chair" and "Secretary" on the slates of fake electors designed to be alternates should Republicans succeed in denying the certifications of the actual electoral votes that were won by Joe Biden.
The scheme didn't work, and then-Vice President Mike Pence certified the election results on January 6 when the congressional session reconvened after being interrupted by a mob of pro-Trump rioters.
"The Select Committee is seeking information about attempts in multiple states to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including the planning and coordination of efforts to send false slates of electors to the National Archives" said Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, of this batch of subpoenas. "We believe the individuals we have subpoenaed today have information about how these so-called alternate electors met and who was behind that scheme."
The committee subpoenaed the following people:
Nancy Cottle and Loraine Pellegrino from Arizona. Cottle is listed on the Arizona Federation of Republican Women's website as being the group's vice president. David Shafer and Shawn Still from Georgia. Shafer is the chair of the Georgia GOP and was a plaintiff in some of Trump's longshot lawsuits to overturn the election in Georgia. Still was the Georgia GOP's finance chair and is now running for a Georgia Senate seat. Kathy Berden and Mayra Rodriguez from Michigan. Berden was a national committeewoman at the Republican National Committee and served as a Trump delegate at the 2016 GOP convention. Rodriguez unsuccessfully ran for a Michigan House seat in 2020. Jewll Powdrell and Deborah Maestas from New Mexico. Powdrell recently told the Albuquerque Journal that he signed the fake certificate at the behest of former Rep. Steve Pearce, the head of the New Mexico GOP. Maestas previously served in that role, leading the state GOP.Michael McDonald and James DeGraffenreid from Nevada. McDonald is the Nevada GOP chairman and reportedly promoted false voter fraud claims in 2020. DeGraffenreid's Facebook page says he is a national committeeman from Nevada for the RNC.The committee subpoenaed Bill Bachenberg and Lisa Patton from Pennsylvania. Bachenberg is a board member of the National Rifle Association and spoke at a pro-Donald Trump fundraiser in 2020. Andrew Hitt and Kelly Ruh from Wisconsin. Hitt is the former chairman of the Wisconsin GOP and a staffer for former Gov. Scott Walker. Ruh is currently an alderperson from the city of De Pere.
The "alternate" slate of electors has become a big focus not only of Select Committee's investigation but other investigations as well. US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco told CNN this week that the Department of Justice is looking into the effort to determine if there was any criminal wrongdoing after receiving requests from lawmakers and state officials to investigate.
The effort to file the fake electoral slates had direct ties to the Trump campaign. CNN has reported that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani coordinated the effort among the Republicans in the seven states to create the bogus certifications that were ultimately sent to the National Archives.
One source said there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and that Giuliani participated in at least one call. The source also said the Trump campaign lined up supporters to fill the elector slots, secured meeting rooms in statehouses for them to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of the fake certificates.
January 6 committee subpoenas individuals tied to fake elector push :: WRAL.com
.
January 6 committee subpoenas individuals tied to fake elector push
CNN — The January 6 Select Committee has issued subpoenas for 14 Republicans from seven states who served on bogus slates of Trump electors in 2020 as part of the Trump campaign's scheme to subvert the Electoral College
The GOP leaders from the states served as "Chair" and "Secretary" on the slates of fake electors designed to be alternates should Republicans succeed in denying the certifications of the actual electoral votes that were won by Joe Biden.
The scheme didn't work, and then-Vice President Mike Pence certified the election results on January 6 when the congressional session reconvened after being interrupted by a mob of pro-Trump rioters.
"The Select Committee is seeking information about attempts in multiple states to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including the planning and coordination of efforts to send false slates of electors to the National Archives" said Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, of this batch of subpoenas. "We believe the individuals we have subpoenaed today have information about how these so-called alternate electors met and who was behind that scheme."
The committee subpoenaed the following people:
Nancy Cottle and Loraine Pellegrino from Arizona. Cottle is listed on the Arizona Federation of Republican Women's website as being the group's vice president. David Shafer and Shawn Still from Georgia. Shafer is the chair of the Georgia GOP and was a plaintiff in some of Trump's longshot lawsuits to overturn the election in Georgia. Still was the Georgia GOP's finance chair and is now running for a Georgia Senate seat. Kathy Berden and Mayra Rodriguez from Michigan. Berden was a national committeewoman at the Republican National Committee and served as a Trump delegate at the 2016 GOP convention. Rodriguez unsuccessfully ran for a Michigan House seat in 2020. Jewll Powdrell and Deborah Maestas from New Mexico. Powdrell recently told the Albuquerque Journal that he signed the fake certificate at the behest of former Rep. Steve Pearce, the head of the New Mexico GOP. Maestas previously served in that role, leading the state GOP.Michael McDonald and James DeGraffenreid from Nevada. McDonald is the Nevada GOP chairman and reportedly promoted false voter fraud claims in 2020. DeGraffenreid's Facebook page says he is a national committeeman from Nevada for the RNC.The committee subpoenaed Bill Bachenberg and Lisa Patton from Pennsylvania. Bachenberg is a board member of the National Rifle Association and spoke at a pro-Donald Trump fundraiser in 2020. Andrew Hitt and Kelly Ruh from Wisconsin. Hitt is the former chairman of the Wisconsin GOP and a staffer for former Gov. Scott Walker. Ruh is currently an alderperson from the city of De Pere.
The "alternate" slate of electors has become a big focus not only of Select Committee's investigation but other investigations as well. US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco told CNN this week that the Department of Justice is looking into the effort to determine if there was any criminal wrongdoing after receiving requests from lawmakers and state officials to investigate.
The effort to file the fake electoral slates had direct ties to the Trump campaign. CNN has reported that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani coordinated the effort among the Republicans in the seven states to create the bogus certifications that were ultimately sent to the National Archives.
One source said there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and that Giuliani participated in at least one call. The source also said the Trump campaign lined up supporters to fill the elector slots, secured meeting rooms in statehouses for them to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of the fake certificates.
January 6 committee subpoenas individuals tied to fake elector push :: WRAL.com
.
Last edited: