Well that will depend on if the dems are still in power because if republicans regain power. You can say good buy to this investigation. It will then turn into an investigation against Biden.
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
Exclusive: Mike Pence's former chief of staff testifies in House January 6 investigation
By Jamie Gangel, Gloria Borger and Jeremy Herb, CNN
Updated 6:16 PM ET, Mon January 31, 2022
(CNN)Marc Short, former Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, quietly testified before the House select committee investigating January 6 last week in response to a subpoena, sources tell CNN, in the most significant sign to date that Pence's team is cooperating with the probe.
Short, who was with Pence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and participated in a critical White House meeting on January 4, 2021, is seen as a potentially crucial witness in the committee's investigation as the panel pieces together the pressure campaign then-President Donald Trump and his allies waged to try to convince Pence not to certify the presidential election.
Short testified before the select committee in person last Wednesday in a lengthy session, according to a source familiar with the matter. Short had previously supplied a limited number of documents that were subpoenaed by the committee, according to one source, including a memo from Trump aide Johnny McEntee comparing Trump to Thomas Jefferson. It's also customary that witnesses hand over more documents when they testify, according to another source familiar with the matter.
Short's testimony, obtained after months of discussions between his attorney Emmet Flood and lawyers on the committee -- as well as a subpoena -- comes as the panel still does not know whether Pence himself will testify.
Short declined to comment. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment.
While the committee has had early, informal discussions with Pence's legal team and hopes he will cooperate in some way, multiple sources told CNN that Pence would prefer aides like Short act as the former vice president's "proxy" so Pence himself does not have to appear.
The prospect of Pence appearing before the January 6 committee underscores the dilemma facing the former vice president, whose political ambitions are intertwined with his strained relationship with Trump. The former President still blames Pence for not trying to overturn the election results in Congress -- and Pence has faced a backlash from Trump's base for his role on January 6.
As recently as this weekend, Trump was still blaming Pence, including in a written statement where he bluntly admitted had been trying to use Pence to overturn the election result. "He could have overturned the Election!" Trump said of Pence.
Pence is seeking to walk a tightrope between affirming that he did the right thing on January 6 and the fact that he will need the support of Trump's base, which falsely believes the 2020 election was stolen, to gain traction in a 2024 Republican presidential primary. Pence has been vague about how much he will cooperate with the committee, and his advisers have pushed back in the media after committee members praised Pence as a "hero" and "patriot."
"This is all a political calculation because he wants to run for president. Somehow he thinks he can straddle and do the right thing but not alienate the base," one source said.
Pence may respond to Trump's comment about him having the right to "overturn" the 2020 election later this week when the former vice president speaks before a Federalist Society gathering in Florida, according to a source familiar with Pence's thinking.
"There was a lot of pressure, but we always knew we were doing the right thing," said a source close to Pence.
While Pence's aides have spoken to the committee, his allies have signaled that when it comes to executive privilege, there's an inclination to remain deferential to Trump. According to multiple sources, the focus on privilege is one way to send a message to Trump and his base that Pence and his aides are not crossing the former President.
Committee sources, however, say privilege should not become an issue with Pence and his team. "Discussions up to this point have been about what questions and what answers could be asked and given without running into any potential privilege roadblocks," said one source familiar with the discussions.
In addition, the committee has made a point publicly of saying that executive privilege can be pierced by criminal activity.
Richard Cullen, who was Pence's lawyer before joining the administration of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, began initial negotiations about how Pence might cooperate with Tim Heaphy, the committee's chief investigator. Heaphy used to be a partner in Cullen's firm.
With Cullen leaving Pence's team to join the Virginia governor's office, it's unclear who is now representing Pence.
CONTINUED:
Marc Short: Mike Pence's former chief of staff testifies in House January 6 investigation - CNNPolitics
By Jamie Gangel, Gloria Borger and Jeremy Herb, CNN
Updated 6:16 PM ET, Mon January 31, 2022
(CNN)Marc Short, former Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, quietly testified before the House select committee investigating January 6 last week in response to a subpoena, sources tell CNN, in the most significant sign to date that Pence's team is cooperating with the probe.
Short, who was with Pence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and participated in a critical White House meeting on January 4, 2021, is seen as a potentially crucial witness in the committee's investigation as the panel pieces together the pressure campaign then-President Donald Trump and his allies waged to try to convince Pence not to certify the presidential election.
Short testified before the select committee in person last Wednesday in a lengthy session, according to a source familiar with the matter. Short had previously supplied a limited number of documents that were subpoenaed by the committee, according to one source, including a memo from Trump aide Johnny McEntee comparing Trump to Thomas Jefferson. It's also customary that witnesses hand over more documents when they testify, according to another source familiar with the matter.
Short's testimony, obtained after months of discussions between his attorney Emmet Flood and lawyers on the committee -- as well as a subpoena -- comes as the panel still does not know whether Pence himself will testify.
Short declined to comment. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment.
While the committee has had early, informal discussions with Pence's legal team and hopes he will cooperate in some way, multiple sources told CNN that Pence would prefer aides like Short act as the former vice president's "proxy" so Pence himself does not have to appear.
The prospect of Pence appearing before the January 6 committee underscores the dilemma facing the former vice president, whose political ambitions are intertwined with his strained relationship with Trump. The former President still blames Pence for not trying to overturn the election results in Congress -- and Pence has faced a backlash from Trump's base for his role on January 6.
As recently as this weekend, Trump was still blaming Pence, including in a written statement where he bluntly admitted had been trying to use Pence to overturn the election result. "He could have overturned the Election!" Trump said of Pence.
Pence is seeking to walk a tightrope between affirming that he did the right thing on January 6 and the fact that he will need the support of Trump's base, which falsely believes the 2020 election was stolen, to gain traction in a 2024 Republican presidential primary. Pence has been vague about how much he will cooperate with the committee, and his advisers have pushed back in the media after committee members praised Pence as a "hero" and "patriot."
"This is all a political calculation because he wants to run for president. Somehow he thinks he can straddle and do the right thing but not alienate the base," one source said.
Pence may respond to Trump's comment about him having the right to "overturn" the 2020 election later this week when the former vice president speaks before a Federalist Society gathering in Florida, according to a source familiar with Pence's thinking.
"There was a lot of pressure, but we always knew we were doing the right thing," said a source close to Pence.
While Pence's aides have spoken to the committee, his allies have signaled that when it comes to executive privilege, there's an inclination to remain deferential to Trump. According to multiple sources, the focus on privilege is one way to send a message to Trump and his base that Pence and his aides are not crossing the former President.
Committee sources, however, say privilege should not become an issue with Pence and his team. "Discussions up to this point have been about what questions and what answers could be asked and given without running into any potential privilege roadblocks," said one source familiar with the discussions.
In addition, the committee has made a point publicly of saying that executive privilege can be pierced by criminal activity.
Richard Cullen, who was Pence's lawyer before joining the administration of GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, began initial negotiations about how Pence might cooperate with Tim Heaphy, the committee's chief investigator. Heaphy used to be a partner in Cullen's firm.
With Cullen leaving Pence's team to join the Virginia governor's office, it's unclear who is now representing Pence.
CONTINUED:
Marc Short: Mike Pence's former chief of staff testifies in House January 6 investigation - CNNPolitics
Last edited:
Trump: Pence Should Be Investigated for Not Reversing My Election Loss
UNDER THE BUS
The former president urged congressional investigators to investigate his veep.
Former President Donald Trump has urged congressional Jan. 6 investigators to open up a probe against his former vice president, Mike Pence, over his refusal to help Trump overturn the 2020 election result.
Pence and Trump haven’t been on speaking terms since last year, when the then-VP went against Trump’s orders and fulfilled his duty to certify Joe Biden’s election victory in Congress. But their relationship plumbed new depths Tuesday, when Trump released a statement saying that Pence should be under investigation for not reversing the 2020 election result.
In a furious statement posted by Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington on Tuesday, the former president once again attacked the House committee investigating the Capitol riot and said the panel should be focusing on Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rather than himself.
The ex-president wrote, “The Unselect Committee should be investigating why Nancy Pelosi did such a poor job of overseeing security and why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!”
Trump’s obsession with Pence’s part in the presidential transition last year has been renewed in recent days as he’s seized on plans to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887— the federal law that Trump tried to abuse to have Pence refuse to certify Biden’s victory last January.
Trump’s flawed argument is that, as a bipartisan group of senators now wants to overhaul the law to help clarify that it can’t be used in the antidemocratic way Trump intended, it proves he was right to say Pence should have stepped in last year to block Biden’s certification.
In his Tuesday statement, Trump went on to say that “there would have been no ‘January 6’ as we know it” if Pence had simply refused to certify the Biden victory, and if Pelosi had heeded his warning to increase security on the day of the Capitol riot to deal with his mob of supporters.
Last week, Pence made clear that he and Trump are no longer 0n good terms by telling Fox News that he hadn’t spoken to Trump since last summer. Trump’s latest intervention won’t improve matters.
Trump: Pence Should Be Investigated for Not Reversing My Election Loss (thedailybeast.com)
UNDER THE BUS
The former president urged congressional investigators to investigate his veep.
Former President Donald Trump has urged congressional Jan. 6 investigators to open up a probe against his former vice president, Mike Pence, over his refusal to help Trump overturn the 2020 election result.
Pence and Trump haven’t been on speaking terms since last year, when the then-VP went against Trump’s orders and fulfilled his duty to certify Joe Biden’s election victory in Congress. But their relationship plumbed new depths Tuesday, when Trump released a statement saying that Pence should be under investigation for not reversing the 2020 election result.
In a furious statement posted by Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington on Tuesday, the former president once again attacked the House committee investigating the Capitol riot and said the panel should be focusing on Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rather than himself.
The ex-president wrote, “The Unselect Committee should be investigating why Nancy Pelosi did such a poor job of overseeing security and why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval, in that it has now been shown that he clearly had the right to do so!”
Trump’s obsession with Pence’s part in the presidential transition last year has been renewed in recent days as he’s seized on plans to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887— the federal law that Trump tried to abuse to have Pence refuse to certify Biden’s victory last January.
Trump’s flawed argument is that, as a bipartisan group of senators now wants to overhaul the law to help clarify that it can’t be used in the antidemocratic way Trump intended, it proves he was right to say Pence should have stepped in last year to block Biden’s certification.
In his Tuesday statement, Trump went on to say that “there would have been no ‘January 6’ as we know it” if Pence had simply refused to certify the Biden victory, and if Pelosi had heeded his warning to increase security on the day of the Capitol riot to deal with his mob of supporters.
Last week, Pence made clear that he and Trump are no longer 0n good terms by telling Fox News that he hadn’t spoken to Trump since last summer. Trump’s latest intervention won’t improve matters.
Trump: Pence Should Be Investigated for Not Reversing My Election Loss (thedailybeast.com)
National Archives planning to turn over Pence Vice Presidential records to January 6 committee
(CNN)The National Archives decided on Tuesday that it will turn over former Vice President Mike Pence's records to the House Select Committee early next month, after former President Donald Trump said he wanted to keep secret more than 100 documents.
This is the first set of records related to Pence's office that the Archives has cleared for release after House investigators sought them and comes as top officials around Pence on January 6 testify to the panel.
The Archives released letters with Trump and the Biden White House on Wednesday, explaining their positions and decisions on this set of records. The letters reveal tension over what may be key communications about January 6 and Pence overseeing the Electoral College certification in Congress, which Trump wanted to stop.
Trump still has the ability to go to court to try to stop the production, though he lost his previous attempt to keep White House records secret at the Supreme Court.
The Biden White House, in its letter declining to assert executive privilege over these records, noted that the presidency may have even less authority to protect vice presidential communications, compared to White House records.
"Many of the records as to which the former President has made a claim of privilege in this set of documents, however, were communications concerning the former Vice President's responsibilities as President of the Senate in certifying the vote of presidential electors on January 6, 2021," Dana Remus, Biden's White House counsel, wrote.
"Although those records qualify as Vice-Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act and therefore and are subject to the provisions of the Act concerning exceptions to restricted access, they are not subject to claims of the presidential communications privilege," Remus wrote.
"In any event, to the extent any of the documents in question could be subject to a claim of executive privilege of any sort, including by the former President, President Biden has determined that an assertion of such a privilege is not justified and is not in the best interests of the United States," Remus wrote.
The Archives says it is immediately turning over vice presidential records to the committee that Trump doesn't contest.
National Archives planning to turn over Pence Vice Presidential records to January 6 committee - CNNPolitics
(CNN)The National Archives decided on Tuesday that it will turn over former Vice President Mike Pence's records to the House Select Committee early next month, after former President Donald Trump said he wanted to keep secret more than 100 documents.
This is the first set of records related to Pence's office that the Archives has cleared for release after House investigators sought them and comes as top officials around Pence on January 6 testify to the panel.
The Archives released letters with Trump and the Biden White House on Wednesday, explaining their positions and decisions on this set of records. The letters reveal tension over what may be key communications about January 6 and Pence overseeing the Electoral College certification in Congress, which Trump wanted to stop.
Trump still has the ability to go to court to try to stop the production, though he lost his previous attempt to keep White House records secret at the Supreme Court.
The Biden White House, in its letter declining to assert executive privilege over these records, noted that the presidency may have even less authority to protect vice presidential communications, compared to White House records.
"Many of the records as to which the former President has made a claim of privilege in this set of documents, however, were communications concerning the former Vice President's responsibilities as President of the Senate in certifying the vote of presidential electors on January 6, 2021," Dana Remus, Biden's White House counsel, wrote.
"Although those records qualify as Vice-Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act and therefore and are subject to the provisions of the Act concerning exceptions to restricted access, they are not subject to claims of the presidential communications privilege," Remus wrote.
"In any event, to the extent any of the documents in question could be subject to a claim of executive privilege of any sort, including by the former President, President Biden has determined that an assertion of such a privilege is not justified and is not in the best interests of the United States," Remus wrote.
The Archives says it is immediately turning over vice presidential records to the committee that Trump doesn't contest.
National Archives planning to turn over Pence Vice Presidential records to January 6 committee - CNNPolitics
Oath Keepers founder spent six hours on Zoom with Jan. 6 panel
An attorney for Elmer Stewart Rhodes estimated that Rhodes invoked his Fifth Amendment rights roughly 20-30 times.
WASHINGTON — The founder of a right-wing group whose members have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol spent about six hours Wednesday talking to the Jan. 6 committee on a Zoom call from a jail in Oklahoma.
Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, who is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, made a virtual appearance before the House committee from the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Okla., one of his lawyers told NBC News. The correctional facility is under contract with the U.S. Marshals, who are transporting Rhodes to D.C. jail.
Rhodes invoked his Fifth Amendment rights about 20-30 times, said lawyer Jonathan Moseley, but ended up talking extensively about the history of the Oath Keepers organization.
Moseley, a Virginia-based lawyer whose other clients have included Jan. 6 defendants Kelly Meggs and Proud Boy Zachary Rehl, said the committee let Rhodes “talk very freely” about the history of the organization, though his attorneys prevented him from answering questions which could impact his criminal case.
"A lot of things about what they do and how they do it were discussed, as long as they weren't specific to November, December 2020 or January 2021," Moseley told NBC News. "He gave examples of how they operate and what they do."
The committee asked a number of "test questions" to see what Rhodes would and wouldn't discuss, Moseley said, but they did end up asking "a lot of questions about the Oath Keepers that he was able to answer." Kellye SoRelle, who became acting head of the Oath Keepers after Rhodes' was arrested in January, has also testified before the Jan. 6 committee.
"I'm sure they were most interested in the stuff that criminal lawyers wouldn't let him answer," Moseley said, mentioning communications with other groups like the Proud Boys, communications with key figures in Trump's orbit, and questions about fundraising for Jan. 6 events.
A committee spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
An aide to the Jan. 6 committee recently told NBC News that the panel had heard from more than 475 witnesses and received more than 60,000 pages of records in the course of its investigation.
Moseley said Rhodes had already agreed to cooperate with the committee as much as he could before he was indicted by a federal grand jury in D.C. The attorney added that Rhodes spoke about prior work with the Oath Keepers, and said Rhodes choked up talking about how members of the group protected a business in Ferguson, Mo., during unrest following the death of Michael Brown in 2014.
Rhodes, federal prosecutors say, is the head of a criminal conspiracy intent on keeping former President Donald Trump in office despite President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors allege Rhodes told other defendants that there was “no standard political or legal way out of this" and that they should be prepared for the worst.
“We aren’t getting through this without civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, sprit,” Rhodes wrote, according to the indictment. “It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going fo have a fight. That can’t be avoided.”
Rhodes helped stand up "Quick Reaction Forces" — QRFs — that were armed and stationed in Virginia, just outside of the reach of the District of Columbia's strict gun laws, prosecutors allege.
“We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC,” Rhodes allegedly wrote on Jan. 6, just before he left his hotel. “And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”
Moseley described the QRFs as "contingency plans that were very unusual" and in place in case "hell" broke loose, but said the individuals never took action.
"They were prepared to swing into action, but Trump never called on them," Moseley said. "One of the things I think is telling is they didn't respond, they didn't bring those weapons... into the District of Columbia. The restraint is part of the story too."
A federal magistrate judge in Texas ordered Rhodes held until trial, saying that evidence showed he had an “authoritative role in the conspiracy" and that his "access to substantial weaponry, and ability to finance any future insurrection, combined with his continued advocacy for violence against the federal government, gives rise to a credible threat."
Moseley said he will continue pressing for Rhodes' pretrial release, while acknowledging that's an uphill battle given the allegations against Rhodes. He said the biggest questions the Jan. 6 committee had for Rhodes may not be answered until Rhodes' criminal proceedings.
"I wish there was more of the red meat," Moseley told NBC News. "We'll have to wait for the trial, I guess."
Oath Keepers founder spent six hours on Zoom with Jan. 6 panel (nbcnews.com)
An attorney for Elmer Stewart Rhodes estimated that Rhodes invoked his Fifth Amendment rights roughly 20-30 times.
WASHINGTON — The founder of a right-wing group whose members have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the attack on the U.S. Capitol spent about six hours Wednesday talking to the Jan. 6 committee on a Zoom call from a jail in Oklahoma.
Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, who is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, made a virtual appearance before the House committee from the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Okla., one of his lawyers told NBC News. The correctional facility is under contract with the U.S. Marshals, who are transporting Rhodes to D.C. jail.
Rhodes invoked his Fifth Amendment rights about 20-30 times, said lawyer Jonathan Moseley, but ended up talking extensively about the history of the Oath Keepers organization.
Moseley, a Virginia-based lawyer whose other clients have included Jan. 6 defendants Kelly Meggs and Proud Boy Zachary Rehl, said the committee let Rhodes “talk very freely” about the history of the organization, though his attorneys prevented him from answering questions which could impact his criminal case.
"A lot of things about what they do and how they do it were discussed, as long as they weren't specific to November, December 2020 or January 2021," Moseley told NBC News. "He gave examples of how they operate and what they do."
The committee asked a number of "test questions" to see what Rhodes would and wouldn't discuss, Moseley said, but they did end up asking "a lot of questions about the Oath Keepers that he was able to answer." Kellye SoRelle, who became acting head of the Oath Keepers after Rhodes' was arrested in January, has also testified before the Jan. 6 committee.
"I'm sure they were most interested in the stuff that criminal lawyers wouldn't let him answer," Moseley said, mentioning communications with other groups like the Proud Boys, communications with key figures in Trump's orbit, and questions about fundraising for Jan. 6 events.
A committee spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
An aide to the Jan. 6 committee recently told NBC News that the panel had heard from more than 475 witnesses and received more than 60,000 pages of records in the course of its investigation.
Moseley said Rhodes had already agreed to cooperate with the committee as much as he could before he was indicted by a federal grand jury in D.C. The attorney added that Rhodes spoke about prior work with the Oath Keepers, and said Rhodes choked up talking about how members of the group protected a business in Ferguson, Mo., during unrest following the death of Michael Brown in 2014.
Rhodes, federal prosecutors say, is the head of a criminal conspiracy intent on keeping former President Donald Trump in office despite President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors allege Rhodes told other defendants that there was “no standard political or legal way out of this" and that they should be prepared for the worst.
“We aren’t getting through this without civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, sprit,” Rhodes wrote, according to the indictment. “It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going fo have a fight. That can’t be avoided.”
Rhodes helped stand up "Quick Reaction Forces" — QRFs — that were armed and stationed in Virginia, just outside of the reach of the District of Columbia's strict gun laws, prosecutors allege.
“We will have several well equipped QRFs outside DC,” Rhodes allegedly wrote on Jan. 6, just before he left his hotel. “And there are many, many others, from other groups, who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worst case scenarios.”
Moseley described the QRFs as "contingency plans that were very unusual" and in place in case "hell" broke loose, but said the individuals never took action.
"They were prepared to swing into action, but Trump never called on them," Moseley said. "One of the things I think is telling is they didn't respond, they didn't bring those weapons... into the District of Columbia. The restraint is part of the story too."
A federal magistrate judge in Texas ordered Rhodes held until trial, saying that evidence showed he had an “authoritative role in the conspiracy" and that his "access to substantial weaponry, and ability to finance any future insurrection, combined with his continued advocacy for violence against the federal government, gives rise to a credible threat."
Moseley said he will continue pressing for Rhodes' pretrial release, while acknowledging that's an uphill battle given the allegations against Rhodes. He said the biggest questions the Jan. 6 committee had for Rhodes may not be answered until Rhodes' criminal proceedings.
"I wish there was more of the red meat," Moseley told NBC News. "We'll have to wait for the trial, I guess."
Oath Keepers founder spent six hours on Zoom with Jan. 6 panel (nbcnews.com)
Memos Show Roots of Trump’s Focus on Jan. 6 and Alternate Electors
Just over two weeks after Election Day, lawyers working with the Trump campaign set out a rationale for creating alternate slates of electors as part of an effort to buy time to overturn the results.
A ballot counting facility in Milwaukee in 2020. The memos were initially intended to address President Donald J. Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin.
Fifteen days after Election Day in 2020, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo setting out what became the rationale for an audacious strategy: to put in place alternate slates of electors in states where President Donald J. Trump was trying to overturn his loss.
The memo, from another lawyer named Kenneth Chesebro, may not have been the first time that lawyers and allies of Mr. Trump had weighed the possibility of naming their own electors in the hopes that they might eventually succeed in flipping the outcome in battleground states through recounts and lawsuits baselessly asserting widespread fraud.
But the Nov. 18 memo and another three weeks later are among the earliest known efforts to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors. They helped to shape a crucial strategy that Mr. Trump would embrace with profound consequences for himself and the nation.
The memos show how just over two weeks after Election Day, Mr. Trump’s campaign was seeking to buy itself more time to undo the results. At the heart of the strategy was the idea that their real deadline was not Dec. 14, when official electors would be chosen to reflect the outcome in each state, but Jan. 6, when Congress would meet to certify the results.
And in that focus on Jan. 6 lay the seeds of what became a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to accept the validity of a challenge to the outcome and to block Congress from finalizing Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory — a campaign that would also lead to a violent assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters and an extraordinary rupture in American politics.
“It may seem odd that the electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on Dec. 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count, and no certificate of election has been issued in favor of Trump and Pence,” the Nov. 18 memo said. “However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action.”
Both federal prosecutors and the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 have recently confirmed that they are examining the effort to submit alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College. On Friday, congressional investigators issued subpoenas to 14 people who claimed to be official Trump electors in states that were actually won by Mr. Biden.
The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Mr. Trump’s top lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and others like John Eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The memos were initially meant to address Mr. Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin, but they ultimately became part of a broader conversation by members of Mr. Trump’s legal team as the president looked toward Jan. 6 and began to exert pressure on Mr. Pence to hold up certification of the Electoral College count.
Neither Mr. Troupis nor Mr. Chesebro responded to requests for comment about the memos. Even before they were written, legislative leaders in Arizona and Wisconsin sought advice from their own lawyers about whether they had the power to alter slates of electors after the election took place and were effectively told they did not, according to new documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.
CONTINUED:
Memos Show Roots of Trump’s Focus on Jan. 6 and Alternate Electors - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Just over two weeks after Election Day, lawyers working with the Trump campaign set out a rationale for creating alternate slates of electors as part of an effort to buy time to overturn the results.
A ballot counting facility in Milwaukee in 2020. The memos were initially intended to address President Donald J. Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin.
Fifteen days after Election Day in 2020, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo setting out what became the rationale for an audacious strategy: to put in place alternate slates of electors in states where President Donald J. Trump was trying to overturn his loss.
The memo, from another lawyer named Kenneth Chesebro, may not have been the first time that lawyers and allies of Mr. Trump had weighed the possibility of naming their own electors in the hopes that they might eventually succeed in flipping the outcome in battleground states through recounts and lawsuits baselessly asserting widespread fraud.
But the Nov. 18 memo and another three weeks later are among the earliest known efforts to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors. They helped to shape a crucial strategy that Mr. Trump would embrace with profound consequences for himself and the nation.
The memos show how just over two weeks after Election Day, Mr. Trump’s campaign was seeking to buy itself more time to undo the results. At the heart of the strategy was the idea that their real deadline was not Dec. 14, when official electors would be chosen to reflect the outcome in each state, but Jan. 6, when Congress would meet to certify the results.
And in that focus on Jan. 6 lay the seeds of what became a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to accept the validity of a challenge to the outcome and to block Congress from finalizing Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory — a campaign that would also lead to a violent assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters and an extraordinary rupture in American politics.
“It may seem odd that the electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on Dec. 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count, and no certificate of election has been issued in favor of Trump and Pence,” the Nov. 18 memo said. “However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action.”
Both federal prosecutors and the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 have recently confirmed that they are examining the effort to submit alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College. On Friday, congressional investigators issued subpoenas to 14 people who claimed to be official Trump electors in states that were actually won by Mr. Biden.
The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Mr. Trump’s top lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and others like John Eastman as they developed a strategy intended to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The memos were initially meant to address Mr. Trump’s challenge to the outcome in Wisconsin, but they ultimately became part of a broader conversation by members of Mr. Trump’s legal team as the president looked toward Jan. 6 and began to exert pressure on Mr. Pence to hold up certification of the Electoral College count.
Neither Mr. Troupis nor Mr. Chesebro responded to requests for comment about the memos. Even before they were written, legislative leaders in Arizona and Wisconsin sought advice from their own lawyers about whether they had the power to alter slates of electors after the election took place and were effectively told they did not, according to new documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.
CONTINUED:
Memos Show Roots of Trump’s Focus on Jan. 6 and Alternate Electors - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Jim Jordan, winner of best Porky Pig imitator ever award....... "I can't remember, uuuuuhhh bduhhhh, I'd have to check, Uuuuuhhh, bduhhhh, bduhhhhto see if I spoke to the President on the January 6th"
CNN Sources: Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6th
.
CNN Sources: Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6th
.
Exclusive: Newly obtained records show Trump and Jim Jordan spoke at length on morning of January 6
Donald Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6 - CNNPolitics
,
Donald Trump and Jim Jordan spoke for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6 - CNNPolitics
,
Flip flopping like two 250lb tunas that fell out of the net on the deck...
Former Trump White House mouthpiece gives up text messages to Jan. 6 probe
Once former President Donald Trump’s formal mouthpiece for 2020 election misinformation, former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany has since cooperated with the Jan. 6 probe, turning over text messages to investigators more than two months...
www.dailykos.com
January 6 committee subpoenas one-time Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro
(CNN)The House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection issued a subpoena Wednesday to Peter Navarro, former President Donald Trump's one-time trade adviser who following the US Capitol riot has consistently defended efforts to overturn the election.
Navarro is just the latest former Trump official to be subpoenaed by the committee in its sweeping investigation but, like others, it remains to be seen if the panel will ultimately succeed in compelling his testimony.
In its subpoena letter, the panel said it wants to speak to Navarro because of press reports that suggest Navarro worked with Trump ally and adviser Stephen Bannon, among others, to help develop a plan to delay the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The panel also cited lines from Navarro's new book where he calls the plan to delay and change the outcome of the election as "the Green Bay Sweep," and describes the effort as the "last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from the Democrats' jaws of deceit."
CONTINUED:
Peter Navarro: January 6 committee subpoenas ex-Trump trade adviser - CNNPolitics
.
(CNN)The House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection issued a subpoena Wednesday to Peter Navarro, former President Donald Trump's one-time trade adviser who following the US Capitol riot has consistently defended efforts to overturn the election.
Navarro is just the latest former Trump official to be subpoenaed by the committee in its sweeping investigation but, like others, it remains to be seen if the panel will ultimately succeed in compelling his testimony.
In its subpoena letter, the panel said it wants to speak to Navarro because of press reports that suggest Navarro worked with Trump ally and adviser Stephen Bannon, among others, to help develop a plan to delay the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
The panel also cited lines from Navarro's new book where he calls the plan to delay and change the outcome of the election as "the Green Bay Sweep," and describes the effort as the "last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from the Democrats' jaws of deceit."
CONTINUED:
Peter Navarro: January 6 committee subpoenas ex-Trump trade adviser - CNNPolitics
.
January 6 committee still expects Giuliani to 'cooperate fully' despite rescheduled appearance
(CNN)Rudy Giuliani has been engaging with the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection through his lawyer about the scope of his subpoena and whether he may be able to comply with some requests.
The panel is making clear that it still expects Giuliani, a central figure in former President Donald Trump's failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, to "cooperate fully" with its subpoena. CNN reported last week that Giuliani was among four witnesses scheduled to appear before the committee on Tuesday who had their depositions rescheduled.
"Mr. Giuliani's appearance was rescheduled at his request. He remains under subpoena and the Select Committee expects him to cooperate fully," a committee aide said in a statement to CNN.
Robert Costello, Giuliani's attorney, previously told CNN that the committee deferred a subpoena deadline while discussions are ongoing.
The committee has rescheduled interviews for other high-profile witnesses who have engaged with investigators, but those talks are predicated on negotiations happening in good faith. Costello has so far declined to say in what areas Giuliani may be willing to cooperate.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Giuliani's lawyer is discussing with the committee the possibility of responding to questions and "has signaled to the committee that he plans to take a less confrontational stance toward its requests than some other members of Mr. Trump's inner circle who are fighting the committee's subpoenas or have otherwise refused to cooperate." The Times also reported Giuliani is still negotiating over whether to sit for a formal deposition or give an informal interview.
Giuliani's apparent willingness to engage with the committee comes as a stark shift from his previous stance.
Last month, immediately following news he had been issued a subpoena, CNN reported that Giuliani had indicated through his attorney that he didn't plan to provide information to the committee, citing claims of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege.
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger said on Sunday that committee members "fully expect" Giuliani to speak with them, adding, "The expectation is he is going to cooperate because that's the law."
"Regardless of when we hear from Rudy or how long that interview is, we're getting a lot of information, and we're looking forward to wrapping this up at some point, when that is right, showing it to the American people, but not rushing it, not hurrying this. We want everyone to have the full story," Kinzinger said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Former White House chief of staff Staff Mark Meadows was referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal contempt charges after refusing to comply with his subpoena in December. Steve Bannon was indicted in November after refusing to obey his subpoena.
January 6 committee still expects Giuliani to 'cooperate fully' despite rescheduled appearance - CNNPolitics
.
(CNN)Rudy Giuliani has been engaging with the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection through his lawyer about the scope of his subpoena and whether he may be able to comply with some requests.
The panel is making clear that it still expects Giuliani, a central figure in former President Donald Trump's failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, to "cooperate fully" with its subpoena. CNN reported last week that Giuliani was among four witnesses scheduled to appear before the committee on Tuesday who had their depositions rescheduled.
"Mr. Giuliani's appearance was rescheduled at his request. He remains under subpoena and the Select Committee expects him to cooperate fully," a committee aide said in a statement to CNN.
Robert Costello, Giuliani's attorney, previously told CNN that the committee deferred a subpoena deadline while discussions are ongoing.
The committee has rescheduled interviews for other high-profile witnesses who have engaged with investigators, but those talks are predicated on negotiations happening in good faith. Costello has so far declined to say in what areas Giuliani may be willing to cooperate.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Giuliani's lawyer is discussing with the committee the possibility of responding to questions and "has signaled to the committee that he plans to take a less confrontational stance toward its requests than some other members of Mr. Trump's inner circle who are fighting the committee's subpoenas or have otherwise refused to cooperate." The Times also reported Giuliani is still negotiating over whether to sit for a formal deposition or give an informal interview.
Giuliani's apparent willingness to engage with the committee comes as a stark shift from his previous stance.
Last month, immediately following news he had been issued a subpoena, CNN reported that Giuliani had indicated through his attorney that he didn't plan to provide information to the committee, citing claims of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege.
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger said on Sunday that committee members "fully expect" Giuliani to speak with them, adding, "The expectation is he is going to cooperate because that's the law."
"Regardless of when we hear from Rudy or how long that interview is, we're getting a lot of information, and we're looking forward to wrapping this up at some point, when that is right, showing it to the American people, but not rushing it, not hurrying this. We want everyone to have the full story," Kinzinger said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Former White House chief of staff Staff Mark Meadows was referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal contempt charges after refusing to comply with his subpoena in December. Steve Bannon was indicted in November after refusing to obey his subpoena.
January 6 committee still expects Giuliani to 'cooperate fully' despite rescheduled appearance - CNNPolitics
.
Last edited:
A running list of who the January 6 committee has subpoenaed or requested to appear
LIST: Who the January 6 committee has subpoenaed or requested to appear - CNNPolitics
.
LIST: Who the January 6 committee has subpoenaed or requested to appear - CNNPolitics
.
Now do something about it
First on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows
At left, Ginni Thomas, and at right, Mark Meadows.
(CNN)The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot has in its possession more than two dozen text messages, 29 in total, between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.
These text messages, according to sources, took place between early November 2020 and mid-January 2021. Thomas recently revealed that she attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but says she "played no role" in planning the events of that day.
The text messages, reviewed by CNN, show Thomas pleading with Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the election results.
"Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History," Thomas wrote on November 10, 2020.
Thomas regularly checked in with Meadows to encourage him to push claims of voter fraud and work to prevent the election from being certified. Meadows often responded. On that same day as the previous text, he wrote: "I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do."
On November 24, 2020, Meadows promised he wasn't done battling on Trump's behalf and evoked his faith as a source of strength.
"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it."
Thomas wrote to Meadows on November 19, 2020, "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." Attorney Sidney Powell, who worked on Trump-aligned lawsuits seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, was also referred to by herself as "The Kraken" in reference to the ancient mythological sea creature.
By the end of November, Thomas was getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress of the attempt to find a path to overturn the results.
On November 24, 2020 she wrote: "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade."
The committee is in possession of only one text from the month of January 2021, four days after the riot on Capitol Hill.
Thomas wrote to Meadows that she was angry with Vice President Mike Pence for not taking the steps necessary to block the certification of the election results.
"We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas wrote.
Thomas' messages reflected a belief that the legal challenges presented by a group of conservative lawyers helping the campaign were valid. She attempted to convince Meadows to put his faith in the hands of Powell, who had spent the weeks following the election claiming to have mountains of evidence of fraud that never martialized.
The content of the text messages may be of interest to the committee's investigation, because it asked Meadows in a subpoena to turn over "both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and other matters that are within the scope of the committee's activity."
The revelation of text messages between Thomas and Meadows, both key allies of former President Donald Trump, comes as progressives and some legal ethics experts see her activism as a potential conflict of interest for Justice Thomas' work on some Supreme Court cases.
Meadows turned over thousands of text messages before he stopped cooperating with the committee. The texts have proven to hold a treasure trove of information about what was going on in the White House in the days leading up to the insurrection, and what people in Trump's orbit were thinking.
The text messages in the committee's possession are only part of the tranche of documents that Meadows provided to the committee during the short period of time he was cooperating with their investigation. They do not necessarily represent the sum total of communication between Thomas and Meadows during that period of time.
There is also the possibility some messages were not turned over due to privilege claims.
Meadows and Thomas are longtime friends, both of whom have been active in conservative causes for decades.
While Thomas has been actively involved in politics, she says she has been careful to distance her activity from her husband.
"But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she recently told the Free Beacon.
The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In early January. The court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
CNN reached out to both Meadows' attorney and Thomas directly for comment and have yet to hear back.
A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment.
This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.
January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows - CNNPolitics
At left, Ginni Thomas, and at right, Mark Meadows.
(CNN)The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot has in its possession more than two dozen text messages, 29 in total, between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.
These text messages, according to sources, took place between early November 2020 and mid-January 2021. Thomas recently revealed that she attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but says she "played no role" in planning the events of that day.
The text messages, reviewed by CNN, show Thomas pleading with Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the election results.
"Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History," Thomas wrote on November 10, 2020.
Thomas regularly checked in with Meadows to encourage him to push claims of voter fraud and work to prevent the election from being certified. Meadows often responded. On that same day as the previous text, he wrote: "I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do."
On November 24, 2020, Meadows promised he wasn't done battling on Trump's behalf and evoked his faith as a source of strength.
"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it."
Thomas wrote to Meadows on November 19, 2020, "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." Attorney Sidney Powell, who worked on Trump-aligned lawsuits seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, was also referred to by herself as "The Kraken" in reference to the ancient mythological sea creature.
By the end of November, Thomas was getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress of the attempt to find a path to overturn the results.
On November 24, 2020 she wrote: "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade."
The committee is in possession of only one text from the month of January 2021, four days after the riot on Capitol Hill.
Thomas wrote to Meadows that she was angry with Vice President Mike Pence for not taking the steps necessary to block the certification of the election results.
"We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas wrote.
Thomas' messages reflected a belief that the legal challenges presented by a group of conservative lawyers helping the campaign were valid. She attempted to convince Meadows to put his faith in the hands of Powell, who had spent the weeks following the election claiming to have mountains of evidence of fraud that never martialized.
The content of the text messages may be of interest to the committee's investigation, because it asked Meadows in a subpoena to turn over "both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and other matters that are within the scope of the committee's activity."
The revelation of text messages between Thomas and Meadows, both key allies of former President Donald Trump, comes as progressives and some legal ethics experts see her activism as a potential conflict of interest for Justice Thomas' work on some Supreme Court cases.
Meadows turned over thousands of text messages before he stopped cooperating with the committee. The texts have proven to hold a treasure trove of information about what was going on in the White House in the days leading up to the insurrection, and what people in Trump's orbit were thinking.
The text messages in the committee's possession are only part of the tranche of documents that Meadows provided to the committee during the short period of time he was cooperating with their investigation. They do not necessarily represent the sum total of communication between Thomas and Meadows during that period of time.
There is also the possibility some messages were not turned over due to privilege claims.
Meadows and Thomas are longtime friends, both of whom have been active in conservative causes for decades.
While Thomas has been actively involved in politics, she says she has been careful to distance her activity from her husband.
"But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she recently told the Free Beacon.
The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In early January. The court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
CNN reached out to both Meadows' attorney and Thomas directly for comment and have yet to hear back.
A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment.
This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.
January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows - CNNPolitics
fuck clarence and his bitchFirst on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows
At left, Ginni Thomas, and at right, Mark Meadows.
(CNN)The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot has in its possession more than two dozen text messages, 29 in total, between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.
These text messages, according to sources, took place between early November 2020 and mid-January 2021. Thomas recently revealed that she attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but says she "played no role" in planning the events of that day.
The text messages, reviewed by CNN, show Thomas pleading with Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the election results.
"Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History," Thomas wrote on November 10, 2020.
Thomas regularly checked in with Meadows to encourage him to push claims of voter fraud and work to prevent the election from being certified. Meadows often responded. On that same day as the previous text, he wrote: "I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do."
On November 24, 2020, Meadows promised he wasn't done battling on Trump's behalf and evoked his faith as a source of strength.
"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it."
Thomas wrote to Meadows on November 19, 2020, "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." Attorney Sidney Powell, who worked on Trump-aligned lawsuits seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, was also referred to by herself as "The Kraken" in reference to the ancient mythological sea creature.
By the end of November, Thomas was getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress of the attempt to find a path to overturn the results.
On November 24, 2020 she wrote: "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade."
The committee is in possession of only one text from the month of January 2021, four days after the riot on Capitol Hill.
Thomas wrote to Meadows that she was angry with Vice President Mike Pence for not taking the steps necessary to block the certification of the election results.
"We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas wrote.
Thomas' messages reflected a belief that the legal challenges presented by a group of conservative lawyers helping the campaign were valid. She attempted to convince Meadows to put his faith in the hands of Powell, who had spent the weeks following the election claiming to have mountains of evidence of fraud that never martialized.
The content of the text messages may be of interest to the committee's investigation, because it asked Meadows in a subpoena to turn over "both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and other matters that are within the scope of the committee's activity."
The revelation of text messages between Thomas and Meadows, both key allies of former President Donald Trump, comes as progressives and some legal ethics experts see her activism as a potential conflict of interest for Justice Thomas' work on some Supreme Court cases.
Meadows turned over thousands of text messages before he stopped cooperating with the committee. The texts have proven to hold a treasure trove of information about what was going on in the White House in the days leading up to the insurrection, and what people in Trump's orbit were thinking.
The text messages in the committee's possession are only part of the tranche of documents that Meadows provided to the committee during the short period of time he was cooperating with their investigation. They do not necessarily represent the sum total of communication between Thomas and Meadows during that period of time.
There is also the possibility some messages were not turned over due to privilege claims.
Meadows and Thomas are longtime friends, both of whom have been active in conservative causes for decades.
While Thomas has been actively involved in politics, she says she has been careful to distance her activity from her husband.
"But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she recently told the Free Beacon.
The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In early January. The court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
CNN reached out to both Meadows' attorney and Thomas directly for comment and have yet to hear back.
A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment.
This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.
January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows - CNNPolitics
Jan. 6 committee recommends Navarro, Scavino be held in contempt of Congress
The House could refer the matter to the DOJ for possible criminal charges.
Jan. 6 committee recommends Navarro, Scavino be held in contempt of Congress - ABC News (go.com)
The House could refer the matter to the DOJ for possible criminal charges.
Jan. 6 committee recommends Navarro, Scavino be held in contempt of Congress - ABC News (go.com)
the doj needs to make some examples
to prevent this shit in the future
DOJ's Jan. 6 probe expands to rally preparations, conspiracies
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack to include the events leading up to the preceding rally, and the wider conspiracies that fueled the violence, people familiar with the issue told The Washington Post.
Before supporters of former President Trump attacked the Capitol, many participated in a rally that had multiple speakers, including Trump himself.
Sources told the Post the DOJ is now looking to the planning of the rally and the conspiracy theories that surrounded the event.
The rally was based around the false claims that Trump won the 2020 presidential election and that election fraud was the reason President Biden won.
The DOJ has begun issuing subpoenas to investigate the funding and planning of the event as well as who was involved. People familiar with the issue told the Post the subpoenas were issued against those in Trump’s circle but would not say what they requested or who received them.
DOJ's Jan. 6 probe expands to rally preparations, conspiracies: report | TheHill
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack to include the events leading up to the preceding rally, and the wider conspiracies that fueled the violence, people familiar with the issue told The Washington Post.
Before supporters of former President Trump attacked the Capitol, many participated in a rally that had multiple speakers, including Trump himself.
Sources told the Post the DOJ is now looking to the planning of the rally and the conspiracy theories that surrounded the event.
The rally was based around the false claims that Trump won the 2020 presidential election and that election fraud was the reason President Biden won.
The DOJ has begun issuing subpoenas to investigate the funding and planning of the event as well as who was involved. People familiar with the issue told the Post the subpoenas were issued against those in Trump’s circle but would not say what they requested or who received them.
DOJ's Jan. 6 probe expands to rally preparations, conspiracies: report | TheHill
about fucking timeDOJ's Jan. 6 probe expands to rally preparations, conspiracies
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack to include the events leading up to the preceding rally, and the wider conspiracies that fueled the violence, people familiar with the issue told The Washington Post.
Before supporters of former President Trump attacked the Capitol, many participated in a rally that had multiple speakers, including Trump himself.
Sources told the Post the DOJ is now looking to the planning of the rally and the conspiracy theories that surrounded the event.
The rally was based around the false claims that Trump won the 2020 presidential election and that election fraud was the reason President Biden won.
The DOJ has begun issuing subpoenas to investigate the funding and planning of the event as well as who was involved. People familiar with the issue told the Post the subpoenas were issued against those in Trump’s circle but would not say what they requested or who received them.
DOJ's Jan. 6 probe expands to rally preparations, conspiracies: report | TheHill
Bob Woodward: Here’s How The 1/6 Committee Can Prove Trump Is Complicit In The Capitol Insurrection – Deep Left Field
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward says the House Select Committee on January 6 has a witness who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that failed ex-President Donald Trump was complicit in the Capitol insurrection.
During an appearance on CNN, Woodward referenced retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who was a longtime Trump ally and is key to finding out exactly what Trump knew and when he knew it:
Trump reportedly refused to heed Kellogg’s warnings, Woodward continued:
That, Woodward concluded, makes Kellogg of major importance for the House Select Committee:
Here’s the video from CNN:
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward says the House Select Committee on January 6 has a witness who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that failed ex-President Donald Trump was complicit in the Capitol insurrection.
During an appearance on CNN, Woodward referenced retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who was a longtime Trump ally and is key to finding out exactly what Trump knew and when he knew it:
Trump reportedly refused to heed Kellogg’s warnings, Woodward continued:
That, Woodward concluded, makes Kellogg of major importance for the House Select Committee:
Here’s the video from CNN:
Jared Kushner provided 'helpful' details to the Jan. 6 committee, a panel member says
Former President Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner provided "helpful" information to the Democratic-led House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a member of the panel said.
Kushner, married to Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump, who was also a senior adviser, is the most high profile member of Trump's inner circle known to have appeared before the committee.
He voluntarily appeared for a remote interview that started at 10 a.m. and lasted at least into the early afternoon hours, several sources familiar with the committee's work said.
Kushner's meeting came two months after the panel asked Ivanka Trump to voluntarily appear before the committee. Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Ivanka Trump and the committee are engaged in conversations, but no final plan has been reached on her appearance.
"The expectation is that it will take place, as to when I can't tell you right now, I know we are engaging her as a committee," Thompson said on Wednesday.
Virginia Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria told NPR the conversation with Kushner was "helpful." She told MSNBC that Kushner was able to substantiate information and provide his own take on different reports on the Jan. 6 attack.
Luria said it's valuable to hear firsthand accounts from witnesses such as Kushner directly.
"I think that the committee really appreciates hearing information directly from people who have relevant facts about January 6, and the fact that Jared Kushner came as a witness is helpful to building the story of our investigation," Luria said.
One source familiar with the committee's discussions but unable to speak on the record said there were details that Kushner couldn't remember but the source noted that like other witnesses, it has been more than a year since the attack on the Capitol and it is not uncommon for some to not recall some specifics.
Kushner was traveling back from Saudi Arabia on Jan. 6, 2021, but Thompson said he believes that he could help the committee understand more about the events that led up to that day.
"We think because he was an integral part of the administration, it's, I think, important for us to find out if he knew anything about the planning before January 6 and to get it from him," Thompson said.
Thompson, who was not at House votes on Thursday and voted by proxy, had said a day earlier if Kushner's interview went well, the panel would ask for additional communication details, such as call and text message records.
Thompson had previously waved off interest in Kushner but said the committee's staff has continued to reach out to potential witnesses.
"We have an excellent staff, and staff has been actively engaging a number of witnesses, including individuals or their attorneys and Kushner's attorney will be the same," Thompson told NPR on Wednesday.
The White House on Wednesday said it had waived executive privilege claims for Kushner and Ivanka Trump, allowing them to share certain details with the panel.
Jared Kushner provided 'helpful' details to Jan. 6 committee, panel member says : NPR
Former President Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner provided "helpful" information to the Democratic-led House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a member of the panel said.
Kushner, married to Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump, who was also a senior adviser, is the most high profile member of Trump's inner circle known to have appeared before the committee.
He voluntarily appeared for a remote interview that started at 10 a.m. and lasted at least into the early afternoon hours, several sources familiar with the committee's work said.
Kushner's meeting came two months after the panel asked Ivanka Trump to voluntarily appear before the committee. Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Ivanka Trump and the committee are engaged in conversations, but no final plan has been reached on her appearance.
"The expectation is that it will take place, as to when I can't tell you right now, I know we are engaging her as a committee," Thompson said on Wednesday.
Virginia Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria told NPR the conversation with Kushner was "helpful." She told MSNBC that Kushner was able to substantiate information and provide his own take on different reports on the Jan. 6 attack.
Luria said it's valuable to hear firsthand accounts from witnesses such as Kushner directly.
"I think that the committee really appreciates hearing information directly from people who have relevant facts about January 6, and the fact that Jared Kushner came as a witness is helpful to building the story of our investigation," Luria said.
One source familiar with the committee's discussions but unable to speak on the record said there were details that Kushner couldn't remember but the source noted that like other witnesses, it has been more than a year since the attack on the Capitol and it is not uncommon for some to not recall some specifics.
Kushner was traveling back from Saudi Arabia on Jan. 6, 2021, but Thompson said he believes that he could help the committee understand more about the events that led up to that day.
"We think because he was an integral part of the administration, it's, I think, important for us to find out if he knew anything about the planning before January 6 and to get it from him," Thompson said.
Thompson, who was not at House votes on Thursday and voted by proxy, had said a day earlier if Kushner's interview went well, the panel would ask for additional communication details, such as call and text message records.
Thompson had previously waved off interest in Kushner but said the committee's staff has continued to reach out to potential witnesses.
"We have an excellent staff, and staff has been actively engaging a number of witnesses, including individuals or their attorneys and Kushner's attorney will be the same," Thompson told NPR on Wednesday.
The White House on Wednesday said it had waived executive privilege claims for Kushner and Ivanka Trump, allowing them to share certain details with the panel.
Jared Kushner provided 'helpful' details to Jan. 6 committee, panel member says : NPR
CNN Exclusive: 'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows ideas for overturning 2020 election before it was called
Washington (CNN)Two days after the 2020 presidential election, as votes were still being tallied, Donald Trump's eldest son texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that "we have operational control" to ensure his father would get a second term, with Republican majorities in the US Senate and swing state legislatures, CNN has learned.
In the text, which has not been previously reported, Donald Trump Jr. lays out ideas for keeping his father in power by subverting the Electoral College process, according to the message reviewed by CNN. The text is among records obtained by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021.
"It's very simple," Trump Jr. texted to Meadows on November 5, adding later in the same missive: "We have multiple paths We control them all."
In a statement to CNN, Trump Jr.'s lawyer Alan S. Futerfas said, "After the election, Don received numerous messages from supporters and others. Given the date, this message likely originated from someone else and was forwarded."
Immediately before his text to Meadows describing multiple paths for challenging the election, Trump Jr. texted Meadows the following: "This is what we need to do please read it and please get it to everyone that needs to see it because I'm not sure we're doing it."
The November 5 text message outlines a strategy that is nearly identical to what allies of the former President attempted to carry out in the months that followed. Trump Jr. makes specific reference to filing lawsuits and advocating recounts to prevent certain swing states from certifying their results, as well as having a handful of Republican state houses put forward slates of fake "Trump electors."
If all that failed, according to the Trump Jr. text, GOP lawmakers in Congress could simply vote to reinstall Trump as President on January 6.
"We have operational control Total leverage," the message reads. "Moral High Ground POTUS must start 2nd term now."
The text from Trump Jr. is revealing on a number of levels. It shows how those closest to the former President were already exchanging ideas for how to overturn the election months before the January 6 insurrection -- and before all the votes were even counted. It would be another two days before major news outlets declared Joe Biden the winner on November 7.
The text also adds to a growing body of evidence of how Trump's inner circle was actively engaged in discussing how to challenge the election results.
On March 28, Judge David Carter, a federal judge in California, said that Trump, along with conservative lawyer John Eastman, launched an "unprecedented" campaign to overturn a democratic election, calling it "a coup in search of a legal theory."
George Terwilliger, an attorney for Meadows, declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the House select committee declined to comment.
Foreshadowing the Trump campaign strategy
In the weeks following the 2020 election, Trump and his allies eventually filed more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits in key states, failing to convince the courts that his claims about a stolen election were justified, or uncover any evidence of widespread voter fraud.
They also called for various recounts based on those same unfounded voter fraud claims. A number of states conducted recounts in the months after the election, though none of them revealed any fraud substantial enough to have changed the outcome of the vote in any state.
While Trump Jr. was publicly pushing various voter fraud conspiracy theories and generally casting doubt about the results in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, his text to Meadows reveals there were other ideas being discussed privately.
Specifically, Trump Jr. previews a strategy to supplant authentic electors with fake Republican electors in a handful of states. That plan was eventually orchestrated and carried out by allies of the former President, and overseen by his then-attorney Rudy Giuliani.
In his text to Meadows, Trump Jr. identifies two key dates in December that serve as deadlines for states to certify their electoral results and compel Congress to accept them. Though the dates are largely ceremonial, in his text Trump Jr. appears to point to them as potential weaknesses to be exploited by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election results.
Seeking Trump electors
Trump Jr.'s November 5 text to Meadows came as similar notions of faithless electors were starting to percolate publicly on conservative social media. Trump Jr. sent the text to Meadows at 12:51 p.m., just minutes after conservative radio host Mark Levin had tweeted a similar idea and suggested state legislatures have final say on electors.
If secretaries of state were unable to certify the results, Trump Jr. argues in his text to Meadows that they should press their advantage by having Republican-controlled state assemblies "step in" and put forward separate slates of "Trump electors," he writes.
"Republicans control Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina etc we get Trump electors," Trump Jr. adds.
Trump Jr.'s text, however, refers to an untested legal theory that state houses are the ultimate authority in elections and can intervene to put forward a different slate of electors than those chosen by the voters, when in reality this is a ceremonial process and the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion.
The Justice Department and the House committee are both investigating the fake electors plot within the context of what unfolded on January 6 and Trump's broader effort to overturn the election.
The strategy floated by Trump Jr. is similar to what was outlined by former Texas Governor and Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who texted Meadows on November 4 suggesting three state legislatures ignore the will of their voters and deliver their states' electors to Trump.
"HERE's an AGRESSIVE (sic) STRATEGY: Why can t (sic) the states of GA NC PENN and other R controlled state houses declare this is BS (where conflicts and election not called that night) and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS," Perry's text message read.
A spokesman for Perry told CNN at the time that the former Energy secretary denies being the author of the text. However, multiple people who know Rick Perry previously confirmed to CNN that the phone number the committee has associated with that text message is Perry's number.
'We control them all'
Trump Jr. also texts Meadows that Congress could intervene on January 6 and overturn the will of voters if, for some reason, they were unable to secure enough electoral votes to tip the outcome in Trump's favor using the state-based strategy.
That option, according to Trump Jr.'s text, involves a scenario where neither Biden nor Trump have enough electoral votes to be declared a winner, prompting the House of Representatives to vote by state party delegation, with each state getting one vote.
"Republicans control 28 states Democrats 22 states," Trump Jr. texts. "Once again Trump wins."
"We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021," he texts Meadows.
CONTINUED:
CNN Exclusive: 'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows detailed plan for overturning 2020 election before it was called - CNNPolitics
Washington (CNN)Two days after the 2020 presidential election, as votes were still being tallied, Donald Trump's eldest son texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that "we have operational control" to ensure his father would get a second term, with Republican majorities in the US Senate and swing state legislatures, CNN has learned.
In the text, which has not been previously reported, Donald Trump Jr. lays out ideas for keeping his father in power by subverting the Electoral College process, according to the message reviewed by CNN. The text is among records obtained by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021.
"It's very simple," Trump Jr. texted to Meadows on November 5, adding later in the same missive: "We have multiple paths We control them all."
In a statement to CNN, Trump Jr.'s lawyer Alan S. Futerfas said, "After the election, Don received numerous messages from supporters and others. Given the date, this message likely originated from someone else and was forwarded."
Immediately before his text to Meadows describing multiple paths for challenging the election, Trump Jr. texted Meadows the following: "This is what we need to do please read it and please get it to everyone that needs to see it because I'm not sure we're doing it."
The November 5 text message outlines a strategy that is nearly identical to what allies of the former President attempted to carry out in the months that followed. Trump Jr. makes specific reference to filing lawsuits and advocating recounts to prevent certain swing states from certifying their results, as well as having a handful of Republican state houses put forward slates of fake "Trump electors."
If all that failed, according to the Trump Jr. text, GOP lawmakers in Congress could simply vote to reinstall Trump as President on January 6.
"We have operational control Total leverage," the message reads. "Moral High Ground POTUS must start 2nd term now."
The text from Trump Jr. is revealing on a number of levels. It shows how those closest to the former President were already exchanging ideas for how to overturn the election months before the January 6 insurrection -- and before all the votes were even counted. It would be another two days before major news outlets declared Joe Biden the winner on November 7.
The text also adds to a growing body of evidence of how Trump's inner circle was actively engaged in discussing how to challenge the election results.
On March 28, Judge David Carter, a federal judge in California, said that Trump, along with conservative lawyer John Eastman, launched an "unprecedented" campaign to overturn a democratic election, calling it "a coup in search of a legal theory."
George Terwilliger, an attorney for Meadows, declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the House select committee declined to comment.
Foreshadowing the Trump campaign strategy
In the weeks following the 2020 election, Trump and his allies eventually filed more than 60 unsuccessful lawsuits in key states, failing to convince the courts that his claims about a stolen election were justified, or uncover any evidence of widespread voter fraud.
They also called for various recounts based on those same unfounded voter fraud claims. A number of states conducted recounts in the months after the election, though none of them revealed any fraud substantial enough to have changed the outcome of the vote in any state.
While Trump Jr. was publicly pushing various voter fraud conspiracy theories and generally casting doubt about the results in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, his text to Meadows reveals there were other ideas being discussed privately.
Specifically, Trump Jr. previews a strategy to supplant authentic electors with fake Republican electors in a handful of states. That plan was eventually orchestrated and carried out by allies of the former President, and overseen by his then-attorney Rudy Giuliani.
In his text to Meadows, Trump Jr. identifies two key dates in December that serve as deadlines for states to certify their electoral results and compel Congress to accept them. Though the dates are largely ceremonial, in his text Trump Jr. appears to point to them as potential weaknesses to be exploited by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election results.
Seeking Trump electors
Trump Jr.'s November 5 text to Meadows came as similar notions of faithless electors were starting to percolate publicly on conservative social media. Trump Jr. sent the text to Meadows at 12:51 p.m., just minutes after conservative radio host Mark Levin had tweeted a similar idea and suggested state legislatures have final say on electors.
If secretaries of state were unable to certify the results, Trump Jr. argues in his text to Meadows that they should press their advantage by having Republican-controlled state assemblies "step in" and put forward separate slates of "Trump electors," he writes.
"Republicans control Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina etc we get Trump electors," Trump Jr. adds.
Trump Jr.'s text, however, refers to an untested legal theory that state houses are the ultimate authority in elections and can intervene to put forward a different slate of electors than those chosen by the voters, when in reality this is a ceremonial process and the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion.
The Justice Department and the House committee are both investigating the fake electors plot within the context of what unfolded on January 6 and Trump's broader effort to overturn the election.
The strategy floated by Trump Jr. is similar to what was outlined by former Texas Governor and Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who texted Meadows on November 4 suggesting three state legislatures ignore the will of their voters and deliver their states' electors to Trump.
"HERE's an AGRESSIVE (sic) STRATEGY: Why can t (sic) the states of GA NC PENN and other R controlled state houses declare this is BS (where conflicts and election not called that night) and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS," Perry's text message read.
A spokesman for Perry told CNN at the time that the former Energy secretary denies being the author of the text. However, multiple people who know Rick Perry previously confirmed to CNN that the phone number the committee has associated with that text message is Perry's number.
'We control them all'
Trump Jr. also texts Meadows that Congress could intervene on January 6 and overturn the will of voters if, for some reason, they were unable to secure enough electoral votes to tip the outcome in Trump's favor using the state-based strategy.
That option, according to Trump Jr.'s text, involves a scenario where neither Biden nor Trump have enough electoral votes to be declared a winner, prompting the House of Representatives to vote by state party delegation, with each state getting one vote.
"Republicans control 28 states Democrats 22 states," Trump Jr. texts. "Once again Trump wins."
"We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021," he texts Meadows.
CONTINUED:
CNN Exclusive: 'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows detailed plan for overturning 2020 election before it was called - CNNPolitics
Bet this ho doesn't want to spend years in prison being forced to do Sammy Davis JR. impressions and holding pockets
Pro-Trump Rally Planner Is Cooperating in Justice Dept.’s Jan. 6 Inquiry
Ali Alexander, who was a key figure in the “Stop the Steal” movement, said he had received a grand jury subpoena and would assist the expanding investigation
Ali Alexander was in contact with a host of pro-Trump rally organizers and with right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers militia and the 1st Amendment Praetorian
Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of pro-Trump events after the 2020 election, has agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation of the attack on the Capitol last year, the first high-profile political figure known to have offered assistance to the government’s newly expanded criminal inquiry.
Speaking through a lawyer, Mr. Alexander said on Friday that he had recently received a subpoena from a federal grand jury that is seeking information on several broad categories of people connected to pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington after the election.
In a statement from the lawyer, Mr. Alexander said he was taking “a cooperative posture” with the Justice Department’s investigation but did not know what useful information he could give. He also disavowed anyone who took part in or planned violence on Jan. 6.
While it remains unclear what Mr. Alexander might tell the grand jury, he was intimately involved in the sprawling effort to mount political protests challenging the results of the election, and had contacts with other organizers, extremist groups, members of Congress and, according to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, White House officials during the period after Election Day.
The grand jury empaneled by federal prosecutors is looking into a wide range of issues surrounding former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the election, after months in which the Justice Department focused on rioters directly involved in the storming of the Capitol.
In early December, Mr. Alexander voluntarily sat for a deposition with the House committee and gave it a trove of documents that helped shed light on the activities that preceded the Capitol attack.
The grand jury subpoena Mr. Alexander received suggests that prosecutors have greatly widened the scope of their inquiry to include not only people who were at the Capitol, but also those who organized and spoke at pro-Trump events in November and December 2020 and on Jan. 6, 2021.
In an indication that the inquiry could reach into the Trump administration and its allies in Congress, the subpoena also seeks information about members of the executive and legislative branches who were involved in the events or who may have helped to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
Mr. Alexander took part in two so-called Stop the Steal rallies in Washington that preceded the former president’s event at the Ellipse, near the White House, on Jan. 6 — one on Nov. 14, 2020, and the other a few weeks later on Dec. 12 — as well as events in the key swing state of Georgia in December.
In the run-up to those gatherings, Mr. Alexander came into contact with a host of rally organizers and with right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers militia and the 1st Amendment Praetorian that provided both public and personal security at the events. In the statement from his lawyer, he said he did not “coordinate any movements” with far-right extremists groups at his events.
Mr. Alexander also had a permit for an event on the east side of the Capitol on Jan. 6 that never took place because of the violence that erupted. In the days and weeks before that rally, he was in touch with people in the White House and members of Congress, according to the House committee’s letter seeking his deposition.
Mr. Alexander has said that he, along with Representatives Mo Brooks of Alabama, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Andy Biggs of Arizona, all Republicans, helped set the events of Jan. 6 in motion.
“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online, “so that who we couldn’t lobby, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”
Mr. Alexander declined to answer any questions about his ties to the White House or members of Congress. He also declined to discuss whether he came up with the idea of marching to the Capitol himself or the notion emerged from conversations with others.
CONTINUED:
Pro-Trump Organizer Cooperating in Justice Dept Jan. 6 Inquiry - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Pro-Trump Rally Planner Is Cooperating in Justice Dept.’s Jan. 6 Inquiry
Ali Alexander, who was a key figure in the “Stop the Steal” movement, said he had received a grand jury subpoena and would assist the expanding investigation
Ali Alexander was in contact with a host of pro-Trump rally organizers and with right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers militia and the 1st Amendment Praetorian
Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of pro-Trump events after the 2020 election, has agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation of the attack on the Capitol last year, the first high-profile political figure known to have offered assistance to the government’s newly expanded criminal inquiry.
Speaking through a lawyer, Mr. Alexander said on Friday that he had recently received a subpoena from a federal grand jury that is seeking information on several broad categories of people connected to pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington after the election.
In a statement from the lawyer, Mr. Alexander said he was taking “a cooperative posture” with the Justice Department’s investigation but did not know what useful information he could give. He also disavowed anyone who took part in or planned violence on Jan. 6.
While it remains unclear what Mr. Alexander might tell the grand jury, he was intimately involved in the sprawling effort to mount political protests challenging the results of the election, and had contacts with other organizers, extremist groups, members of Congress and, according to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, White House officials during the period after Election Day.
The grand jury empaneled by federal prosecutors is looking into a wide range of issues surrounding former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the election, after months in which the Justice Department focused on rioters directly involved in the storming of the Capitol.
In early December, Mr. Alexander voluntarily sat for a deposition with the House committee and gave it a trove of documents that helped shed light on the activities that preceded the Capitol attack.
The grand jury subpoena Mr. Alexander received suggests that prosecutors have greatly widened the scope of their inquiry to include not only people who were at the Capitol, but also those who organized and spoke at pro-Trump events in November and December 2020 and on Jan. 6, 2021.
In an indication that the inquiry could reach into the Trump administration and its allies in Congress, the subpoena also seeks information about members of the executive and legislative branches who were involved in the events or who may have helped to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
Mr. Alexander took part in two so-called Stop the Steal rallies in Washington that preceded the former president’s event at the Ellipse, near the White House, on Jan. 6 — one on Nov. 14, 2020, and the other a few weeks later on Dec. 12 — as well as events in the key swing state of Georgia in December.
In the run-up to those gatherings, Mr. Alexander came into contact with a host of rally organizers and with right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers militia and the 1st Amendment Praetorian that provided both public and personal security at the events. In the statement from his lawyer, he said he did not “coordinate any movements” with far-right extremists groups at his events.
Mr. Alexander also had a permit for an event on the east side of the Capitol on Jan. 6 that never took place because of the violence that erupted. In the days and weeks before that rally, he was in touch with people in the White House and members of Congress, according to the House committee’s letter seeking his deposition.
Mr. Alexander has said that he, along with Representatives Mo Brooks of Alabama, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Andy Biggs of Arizona, all Republicans, helped set the events of Jan. 6 in motion.
“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video posted online, “so that who we couldn’t lobby, we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.”
Mr. Alexander declined to answer any questions about his ties to the White House or members of Congress. He also declined to discuss whether he came up with the idea of marching to the Capitol himself or the notion emerged from conversations with others.
CONTINUED:
Pro-Trump Organizer Cooperating in Justice Dept Jan. 6 Inquiry - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Last edited:
Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending
FILE - President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. On the day of the Capitol riot that shook American democracy, there are no official White House phone notations from about 11 a.m. to about 7 p.m. While that leaves holes in the record, a lot of publicly available information has surfaced about what Trump did do and say. (AP https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-panel-evidence-criminal-143011368.html
Sun, April 10, 2022, 10:30 AM
WASHINGTON — The leaders of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack have grown divided over whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of former President Donald Trump, even though they have concluded that they have enough evidence to do so, people involved in the discussions said.
The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department’s expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.
Since the summer, a team of former federal prosecutors working for the committee has focused on documenting the attack and the preceding efforts by Trump and his allies to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. The panel plans to issue a detailed report on its findings, but in recent months it has regularly signaled that it was also weighing a criminal referral that would pressure Attorney General Merrick Garland to open a criminal investigation into Trump.
But now, with the Justice Department appearing to ramp up a wide-ranging investigation, some Democrats are questioning whether there is any need to make a referral — and whether doing so would saddle a criminal case with further partisan baggage at a time when Trump is openly flirting with running again in 2024.
The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman had committed federal crimes.
The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
The members and aides who were reluctant to support a referral contended that making one would create the appearance that Garland was investigating Trump at the behest of a Democratic Congress and that if the committee could avoid that perception it should, the people said.
Even if the final report does not include a specific referral letter to Garland, the findings would still provide federal prosecutors with the evidence the committee uncovered — including some that has not yet become public — that could be used as a road map for any prosecution, the people said.
“If you read his decision, I think it’s quite telling,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a member of the committee, said of Carter’s ruling. “He and we have reviewed a huge amount of documents, and he reached a conclusion that he outlined in very stark terms.”
Lofgren is among those who believe a referral letter to the Justice Department is superfluous, since it would carry no legal weight.
“Maybe we will, maybe we won’t,” she said of a referral. “It doesn’t have a legal impact.”
But the question about whether to send the referral has, for one of the first times since the committee was formed in July, exposed differences among members about the panel’s mission.
Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a member of the panel, said that the committee should still send a referral for any crimes it uncovers.
“I would say that I don’t agree with what some of my colleagues have said about this,” Luria said on MSNBC this month. “I think it’s a lot more important to do what’s right than it is to worry about the political ramifications. This committee, our purpose is legislative and oversight, but if in the course of our investigation we find that criminal activity has occurred, I think it’s our responsibility to refer that to the Department of Justice.”
Although staff members have been in discussions about a referral, and some have debated the matter publicly, the committee members have not sat down together to discuss whether to proceed with a referral, several lawmakers said.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said the committee was likely to hold off on making a final determination until investigators finished their work. He said the panel was “finishing up” its investigative phase and shifting to a more “public-facing” one in which the panel will present its findings.
“The members haven’t had those conversations,” Aguilar said of a meeting to discuss a potential referral. “Right now, we’re gathering the material that we need. As the investigative phase winds down, we’ll have more conversations about what the report looks like. But we’re not presupposing where that’s going to go before we get a little further with the interviews.”
Although the committee has the ability to subpoena testimony and documents and make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecutions, it has no criminal prosecution powers.
The committee’s vice chairwoman, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., singled out Trump’s conduct at a public hearing in December, reading from the criminal code and laying out how she believed he had obstructed Congress. In early March, the committee in effect road-tested whether the evidence it had gathered could support a prosecution, laying out in a filing in the civil case before Carter its position that Trump and Eastman had obstructed Congress and defrauded the American public.
In validating the committee’s position, legal experts said, the judge made it difficult for the Justice Department to avoid an investigation. Garland has given no public indication of the department’s intentions other than to say that it will follow the facts and the law. But subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury indicate that prosecutors are gathering information about a wide array of issues, including about efforts to obstruct the election certification by people in the Trump White House and in Congress.
Investigators from the House committee and the Justice Department have not been sharing information, except to avoid conflicts around the scheduling of certain witnesses.
“We want them to move faster, but we respect their work,” Aguilar said, adding that the committee has a different goal than the Justice Department’s inquiry: to fully investigate what led to the riot, which injured more than 150 police officers, and take legislative steps to prevent a repeat. “It’s an insult to the lives of the Capitol Police officers if we don’t pursue what happened and take meaningful and concrete steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.”
Aside from the question of whether to make a referral about Trump, the committee has moved aggressively to use the Justice Department to ensure that witnesses cooperate with its investigation. The committee has made criminal referrals against four Trump White House officials for their refusal to sit for questioning or hand over documents, accusing them of contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department has charged only one — Steve Bannon — frustrating the committee.
Those frustrations played out in public at a hearing this month, when Lofgren said: “This committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice needs to do theirs.”
Lofgren said she had not planned to make the remarks, but as she sat on the dais during the hearing, she decided to veer from her planned remarks because the department’s slowness in addressing the contempt referrals ate at her.
“Some of us did express some frustration. I’m among them,” she said. “Honestly, I hadn’t planned to say that. It wasn’t my script. It wasn’t there. But I thought, you know, this is frustrating. I just decided to say it.”
Trying to pressure the Justice Department to prosecute a contempt of Congress charge is more appropriate than other criminal referrals, Lofgren argued.
“It’s different than doing a referral generally for prosecution,” she said. “When you’re the victim of a crime, there is some weight to that. And when you are the victim of criminal contempt, as the committee is, you’re the victim. And so I think there was some stature to that.”
The committee is preparing to hold public hearings in May and June, and to make a final report in September.
After interviewing more than 800 witnesses — including more than a dozen Trump White House officials — the panel has another 100 interviews lined up, including some witnesses it wants to bring in a second time. Among those scheduled to testify soon is Stephen Miller, a former White House adviser to Trump, who the committee says helped spread false claims of voter fraud in the election and encouraged state legislatures to appoint alternate slates of electors in an effort to invalidate Joe Biden’s victory.
Miller has sued to block the committee from gaining access to his phone records, arguing in part that the panel was invading his parents’ privacy since he was on their family plan.
The committee is still deciding whether to call some key witnesses, including Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who urged Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time, to work to keep Trump in office.
“We have completed a substantial amount of work,” Lofgren said. “We’re going to accomplish — we hope — what we set out to do, which is to tell the entire story of what happened, the events of the 6th and the events that led up to the day.”
FILE - President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. On the day of the Capitol riot that shook American democracy, there are no official White House phone notations from about 11 a.m. to about 7 p.m. While that leaves holes in the record, a lot of publicly available information has surfaced about what Trump did do and say. (AP https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-panel-evidence-criminal-143011368.html
Sun, April 10, 2022, 10:30 AM
WASHINGTON — The leaders of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack have grown divided over whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of former President Donald Trump, even though they have concluded that they have enough evidence to do so, people involved in the discussions said.
The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department’s expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.
Since the summer, a team of former federal prosecutors working for the committee has focused on documenting the attack and the preceding efforts by Trump and his allies to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. The panel plans to issue a detailed report on its findings, but in recent months it has regularly signaled that it was also weighing a criminal referral that would pressure Attorney General Merrick Garland to open a criminal investigation into Trump.
But now, with the Justice Department appearing to ramp up a wide-ranging investigation, some Democrats are questioning whether there is any need to make a referral — and whether doing so would saddle a criminal case with further partisan baggage at a time when Trump is openly flirting with running again in 2024.
The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman had committed federal crimes.
The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
The members and aides who were reluctant to support a referral contended that making one would create the appearance that Garland was investigating Trump at the behest of a Democratic Congress and that if the committee could avoid that perception it should, the people said.
Even if the final report does not include a specific referral letter to Garland, the findings would still provide federal prosecutors with the evidence the committee uncovered — including some that has not yet become public — that could be used as a road map for any prosecution, the people said.
“If you read his decision, I think it’s quite telling,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a member of the committee, said of Carter’s ruling. “He and we have reviewed a huge amount of documents, and he reached a conclusion that he outlined in very stark terms.”
Lofgren is among those who believe a referral letter to the Justice Department is superfluous, since it would carry no legal weight.
“Maybe we will, maybe we won’t,” she said of a referral. “It doesn’t have a legal impact.”
But the question about whether to send the referral has, for one of the first times since the committee was formed in July, exposed differences among members about the panel’s mission.
Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., a member of the panel, said that the committee should still send a referral for any crimes it uncovers.
“I would say that I don’t agree with what some of my colleagues have said about this,” Luria said on MSNBC this month. “I think it’s a lot more important to do what’s right than it is to worry about the political ramifications. This committee, our purpose is legislative and oversight, but if in the course of our investigation we find that criminal activity has occurred, I think it’s our responsibility to refer that to the Department of Justice.”
Although staff members have been in discussions about a referral, and some have debated the matter publicly, the committee members have not sat down together to discuss whether to proceed with a referral, several lawmakers said.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said the committee was likely to hold off on making a final determination until investigators finished their work. He said the panel was “finishing up” its investigative phase and shifting to a more “public-facing” one in which the panel will present its findings.
“The members haven’t had those conversations,” Aguilar said of a meeting to discuss a potential referral. “Right now, we’re gathering the material that we need. As the investigative phase winds down, we’ll have more conversations about what the report looks like. But we’re not presupposing where that’s going to go before we get a little further with the interviews.”
Although the committee has the ability to subpoena testimony and documents and make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecutions, it has no criminal prosecution powers.
The committee’s vice chairwoman, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., singled out Trump’s conduct at a public hearing in December, reading from the criminal code and laying out how she believed he had obstructed Congress. In early March, the committee in effect road-tested whether the evidence it had gathered could support a prosecution, laying out in a filing in the civil case before Carter its position that Trump and Eastman had obstructed Congress and defrauded the American public.
In validating the committee’s position, legal experts said, the judge made it difficult for the Justice Department to avoid an investigation. Garland has given no public indication of the department’s intentions other than to say that it will follow the facts and the law. But subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury indicate that prosecutors are gathering information about a wide array of issues, including about efforts to obstruct the election certification by people in the Trump White House and in Congress.
Investigators from the House committee and the Justice Department have not been sharing information, except to avoid conflicts around the scheduling of certain witnesses.
“We want them to move faster, but we respect their work,” Aguilar said, adding that the committee has a different goal than the Justice Department’s inquiry: to fully investigate what led to the riot, which injured more than 150 police officers, and take legislative steps to prevent a repeat. “It’s an insult to the lives of the Capitol Police officers if we don’t pursue what happened and take meaningful and concrete steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.”
Aside from the question of whether to make a referral about Trump, the committee has moved aggressively to use the Justice Department to ensure that witnesses cooperate with its investigation. The committee has made criminal referrals against four Trump White House officials for their refusal to sit for questioning or hand over documents, accusing them of contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department has charged only one — Steve Bannon — frustrating the committee.
Those frustrations played out in public at a hearing this month, when Lofgren said: “This committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice needs to do theirs.”
Lofgren said she had not planned to make the remarks, but as she sat on the dais during the hearing, she decided to veer from her planned remarks because the department’s slowness in addressing the contempt referrals ate at her.
“Some of us did express some frustration. I’m among them,” she said. “Honestly, I hadn’t planned to say that. It wasn’t my script. It wasn’t there. But I thought, you know, this is frustrating. I just decided to say it.”
Trying to pressure the Justice Department to prosecute a contempt of Congress charge is more appropriate than other criminal referrals, Lofgren argued.
“It’s different than doing a referral generally for prosecution,” she said. “When you’re the victim of a crime, there is some weight to that. And when you are the victim of criminal contempt, as the committee is, you’re the victim. And so I think there was some stature to that.”
The committee is preparing to hold public hearings in May and June, and to make a final report in September.
After interviewing more than 800 witnesses — including more than a dozen Trump White House officials — the panel has another 100 interviews lined up, including some witnesses it wants to bring in a second time. Among those scheduled to testify soon is Stephen Miller, a former White House adviser to Trump, who the committee says helped spread false claims of voter fraud in the election and encouraged state legislatures to appoint alternate slates of electors in an effort to invalidate Joe Biden’s victory.
Miller has sued to block the committee from gaining access to his phone records, arguing in part that the panel was invading his parents’ privacy since he was on their family plan.
The committee is still deciding whether to call some key witnesses, including Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who urged Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time, to work to keep Trump in office.
“We have completed a substantial amount of work,” Lofgren said. “We’re going to accomplish — we hope — what we set out to do, which is to tell the entire story of what happened, the events of the 6th and the events that led up to the day.”