The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[China]

‘You Must Use the Insurrection Act’: Oath Keepers Trial Witness Says Stewart Rhodes Asked Him to Tell Trump to Seize Power by Force

 

A government witness in the seditious conspiracy trial of Stewart Rhodes claims the Oath Keepers leader asked him to deliver a message telling then-President Donald Trump to seize power by force.

 

“You must use the insurrection act and use the power of the Presidency to stop him,” Rhodes allegedly told Trump in a typewritten message entered into evidence. “And all us veterans will support you and so will the vast majority of military.”

 

According to the testimony, Rhodes personally entered that message into the phone of government witness Jason Alpers, a military veteran with combat and special ops experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

He testified that Rhodes passed on the message during his meeting with the Oath Keepers leader in the parking lot of a Fry’s electronics store in Texas on Jan. 10, 2021.

Rhodes, he claims, wanted him to pass the message to Trump, knowing that Alpers had a line to the 45th president.

 

“Not directly but indirectly,” Alpers testified.

 

Alpers said that he furtively taped the meeting with a recording device — which he said resembled a thumb drive — in case he needed to pass on the message to Trump.

“I was really using it for my protection, making sure that I had an accurate account of it,” he said.

 

That recording, which Alpers turned over to the FBI months later, was entered into evidence and played in court. It features a lengthy discussion of the Insurrection Act, which Oath Keepers members believed would allow Trump to militarize groups like them to keep him in power.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[redskinss]

Has anyone ever seen Donald Trump and Dan Snyder in a room together?

I'm beginning to wonder if they're the same person. 

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, redskinss said:

Has anyone ever seen Donald Trump and Dan Snyder in a room together?

I'm beginning to wonder if they're the same person. 

 

[China]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

[Dan T.]

 

[Fan since a Fetus]

Holy hell!! ^ That that is absolutely hilarious!

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

Holy hell!! ^ That that is absolutely hilarious!

Although also eerily close to the classic definition of "chutzpah". 

[China]

Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024

 

As Donald Trump inches closer to launching another presidential run after the midterm election, Justice Department officials have discussed whether a Trump candidacy would create the need for a special counsel to oversee two sprawling federal investigations related to the former president, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

 

The Justice Department is also staffing up its investigations with experienced prosecutors so it’s ready for any decisions after the midterms, including the potential unprecedented move of indicting a former president.

 

In the weeks leading up to the election, the Justice Department has observed the traditional quiet period of not making any overt moves that may have political consequences. But behind the scenes, investigators have remained busy, using aggressive grand jury subpoenas and secret court battles to compel testimony from witnesses in both the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his alleged mishandling of national security documents kept at his Palm Beach home.

 

Now federal investigators are planning for a burst of post-election activity in Trump-related investigations. That includes the prospect of indictments of Trump’s associates – moves that could be made more complicated if Trump declares a run for the presidency.

 

“They can crank up charges on almost anybody if they wanted to,” said one defense attorney working on January 6-related matters, who added defense lawyers have “have no idea” who ultimately will be charged.

 

“This is the scary thing,” the attorney said.

 

Trump and his associates also face legal exposure in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the Peach State and expects to wrap her probe by the end of the year.

 

Indicting an active candidate for the White House would surely spark a political firestorm. And while no decision has been made about whether a special counsel might be needed in the future, DOJ officials have debated whether doing so could insulate the Justice Department from accusations that Joe Biden’s administration is targeting his chief political rival, people familiar with the matter tell CNN.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fan since a Fetus]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

Although also eerily close to the classic definition of "chutzpah". 

Can a joke at another persons expense be considered chutzpah? I honestly don’t know the ends and outs of the term, just that it is Yiddish. Its all Messhugah anyways!

 

 

But seriously, is this him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

Thread...

 

 

[Larry]

And they have a friend's wife who teaches school with litter boxes. 

[Bang]

The constant debunkings are about as worthwhile as the 3AM Fox news "corrections".
I mean, nice that what we all knew is officially proven, but the damage is long since done, and nobody who needs it proven to them will listen anyway.

 

The ones who will wake up from this when it all finally dawns on them are a very small minority.

 

~Bang

[China]

Oath Keepers leader testifies 2020 election was ‘unconstitutional,’ paints himself as anti-violence

 

Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the right-wing Oath Keepers who prosecutors say called for a “bloody revolution” to keep then-President Donald Trump in power, painted himself as an anti-racist Libertarian who believed the 2020 election was unconstitutional as he testified in his own defense on Friday.

 

Rhodes is the first of the five defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, DC, to testify.

 

The courtroom was packed during his testimony, and Rhodes choked up several times discussing his family, suicide rates among veterans and other subjects highlighted by his lawyer, Phillip Linder. He spoke directly to the jury and appeared very comfortable on the stand.

 

Rhodes explained to the jury that he didn’t believe either Trump or Joe Biden won in 2020 because the election itself was “unconstitutional.”

 

“I believe the election was unconstitutional, and that made it invalid,” Rhodes testified. “You really can’t have a winner of an unconstitutional election.”

 

Rhodes told the jury that, as he saw it, election laws in several states were changed by “executive fiat” and not through the state legislature.

 

“In multiple states especially in the swing states … you had them putting in new rules in direct violation” of state laws, Rhodes said.

 

“Everyone kept focusing on the computers” and other theories of voter fraud, Rhodes said, instead of the constitutional issues, which they needed to discuss before figuring out “whether there’s fraud on the ground.”

 

Rhodes did not detail any specific laws that were changed. CNN has found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

 

Prosecutors have alleged that Rhodes wanted Trump to remain in power and that the militia leader supported a “bloody revolution” to secure the presidency.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[LadySkinsFan]

10 hours ago, China said:

Oath Keepers leader testifies 2020 election was ‘unconstitutional,’ paints himself as anti-violence

 

Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the right-wing Oath Keepers who prosecutors say called for a “bloody revolution” to keep then-President Donald Trump in power, painted himself as an anti-racist Libertarian who believed the 2020 election was unconstitutional as he testified in his own defense on Friday.

 

Rhodes is the first of the five defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, DC, to testify.

 

The courtroom was packed during his testimony, and Rhodes choked up several times discussing his family, suicide rates among veterans and other subjects highlighted by his lawyer, Phillip Linder. He spoke directly to the jury and appeared very comfortable on the stand.

 

Rhodes explained to the jury that he didn’t believe either Trump or Joe Biden won in 2020 because the election itself was “unconstitutional.”

 

“I believe the election was unconstitutional, and that made it invalid,” Rhodes testified. “You really can’t have a winner of an unconstitutional election.”

 

Rhodes told the jury that, as he saw it, election laws in several states were changed by “executive fiat” and not through the state legislature.

 

“In multiple states especially in the swing states … you had them putting in new rules in direct violation” of state laws, Rhodes said.

 

“Everyone kept focusing on the computers” and other theories of voter fraud, Rhodes said, instead of the constitutional issues, which they needed to discuss before figuring out “whether there’s fraud on the ground.”

 

Rhodes did not detail any specific laws that were changed. CNN has found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

 

Prosecutors have alleged that Rhodes wanted Trump to remain in power and that the militia leader supported a “bloody revolution” to secure the presidency.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

A belief is not fact. Over 60 times they tried the courts to make their beliefs fact but presented no facts thus were tossed out. Facts matter. Not lies from a grifter and his minions.

[China]

So, as we all assumed, Trump did not comply with the subpoena.  And I think we're all assuming that the repercussions for not complying will be nothing.

 

As Trump misses Jan. 6 subpoena deadline, what happens now?

 

It was a few weeks ago when the Jan. 6 committee took the bold step of subpoenaing Donald Trump for testimony and documents. “In short,” the bipartisan panel told the Republican, “you were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a bloody attack on our own Capitol and on the Congress itself.”

 

As part of the legal directive, lawmakers gave Trump until Nov. 14 — after the midterm elections — to testify under oath and answer investigators’ questions. But the committee’s subpoena also told the former president to turn over several documents by Nov. 4 — including any communications he had regarding extremist groups, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and possible interactions he had with witnesses testifying before the Jan. 6 committee.

 

Nov. 4 was late last week. Trump and his lawyers did not turn over the materials. As NBC News reported, the panel agreed to extend the deadline.

 

The statement added, “We have informed the former President’s counsel that he must begin producing records no later than next week and he remains under subpoena for deposition testimony starting on November 14th.”

 

In other words, Team Trump didn’t entirely blow off the preliminary deadline. There was some kind of interaction, which the committee interpreted as constructive, and which led to the former president having another week to comply with the subpoena.

 

In practice, however, he’s likely to simply run out the clock: As we’ve discussed, the pending summons will expire at the end of the current Congress, which will wrap up in roughly 57 days. If Americans elect a Republican majority in the House, as appears likely, the select committee’s work will come to an abrupt end. Even if the panel and its investigators were to take the matter to court, or try to move forward with some kind of contempt proceedings, it's unrealistic to think the matter would be resolved in 57 days.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

When Trump Announces Candidacy, Watchdog Will File Insurrection Disqualification Challenge

 

When Donald Trump announces he’s running for the presidency, as he’s expected to do, a watchdog group plans to file a challenge under the 14th Amendment, which bars reelection of officials who engaged in or supported an insurrection.

 

“The evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection is overwhelming,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement last week. “We are ready, willing and able to take action to make sure the Constitution is upheld and Trump is prevented from holding office.”

 

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, bars any officials who have taken an oath of office to defend the government from reelection if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government — or have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

 

CREW sent a letter to Trump on Thursday alerting him to the planned challenge if he announces his candidacy for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

 

“CREW believes you are barred from holding office Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because you engaged in insurrection against the government you swore to defend,” states the letter. “By summoning a violent mob to disrupt the transition of presidential power mandated by the Constitution after having sworn to defend the same, you made yourself ineligible to hold public office again.”

 

The “evidence that you engaged in insurrection as contemplated in the Fourteenth Amendment — including by mobilizing, inciting and aiding those attacking the Capitol — is overwhelming,” the letter adds.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Bang]

He will 'run' even if he's barred from every ballot in every state.

He'll run a "people's campaign", it will scream victimhood and point their lunatic cannons at a system they will pretend is corrupted just to stop him, and he will claim victory at every turn, even if he is left doing it on Pillow Boy's idiot network with a handful of postcards he claims are actual votes sent to him from all around the world.

 

And his idiots will believe it.

 

~Bang

Edited November 8, 2022 by Bang

[China]

Prosecutors use Oath Keepers leader’s own words against him in heated cross-examination

 

In a tense, head-to-head exchange with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, prosecutors used Rhodes’ own words from texts, speeches and interviews to suggest to the jury that the militia leader misled them when he testified he was unaware of other members’ activities on January 6, 2021, and was appalled by the violence that day.

 

Rhodes is the first of the five defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, DC, to testify.

 

In his two-day testimony, Rhodes told the jury that he wasn’t involved in the specifics of planning for January 6, and that he had no knowledge of plans for the so-called quick reaction force that the group set up in Virginia to quickly move weapons into Washington, as prosecutors have alleged.

 

Prosecutor Kathryn Rakoczy, however, showed the jury Signal messages in which Rhodes told other members that “We WILL have a QRF” on January 6 because “this situation calls for it” and was part of group messages where members shared photographs of routes the QRF could use to enter the city.

 

“The buck stopped with you in this operation,” Rakoczy said to Rhodes, reading the leader’s messages aloud.

 

“I’m responsible for everything everyone else did?” Rhodes responded.

 

“You’re in charge, right?” Rakoczy said.

 

“Not if they do something off mission,” he shot back.

 

“That’s convenient,” Rakoczy said, smiling.

 

The militia leader also told prosecutors that he “hoped to avoid” conflict and was only concerned about a civil war breaking out after Joe Biden became president – leading to a chiding question from Rakoczy about how “the civil war will be on [January] 21st and not on the sixth?”

 

“I don’t condone the violence that happened” on January 6, Rhodes testified. “Anyone who did assault a police officer that day should be prosecuted for it.”

 

Rakoczy pointed to statements Rhodes made in a secretly recorded conversation in the days after January 6 where he said he wished the Oath Keepers had brought rifles to the Capitol that day.

 

“If he’s not going to do the right thing, and he’s just going to let himself be removed illegally, then we should have brought rifles,” Rhodes said in the recording prosecutors again played for the jury.

 

“We could have fixed it right then and there,” Rhodes said of the Capitol attack, according to the recording. “I’d hang f**king Pelosi from the lamppost.”

 

After playing the recording, Rakoczy asked Rhodes, “That’s what you said four days after the assault at the Capitol, right?”

 

“Yeah, after a couple drinks and I was pissed off,” Rhodes testified.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Trump sues the Jan. 6 House committee to avoid a subpoena

 

Former President Donald Trump is suing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to avoid cooperating with a subpoena requiring him to testify.

 

The suit filed Friday evening contends that, while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, "no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so."

 

"Long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it," Trump attorney David A. Warrington said in a statement announcing Trump's intentions.

 

Warrington said Trump had engaged with the committee "in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns consistent with Executive Branch prerogatives and separation of powers," but said the panel "insists on pursuing a political path, leaving President Trump with no choice but to involve the third branch, the judicial branch, in this dispute between the executive and legislative branches."

 

The committee declined to comment on the filing, which comes days before the the deadline set by the committee for Trump to begin cooperating. But the suit likely dooms the prospect of Trump ever having to testify, given that the committee is expected to disband at the end of the legislative session in January.

 

In his suit, Trump's attorneys attack the subpoena as overly broad and frame it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights. They also argue other sources besides Trump could provide the same information the committee wants from him.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

edit: Wrong thread.

Edited November 14, 2022 by visionary

[China]

In Just-Unsealed Filing, DOJ Asks Mar-a-Lago Special Master to Force Trump to Confirm Seized Files Are Authentic in a Sworn Affidavit

 

In a just-unsealed filing, the Department of Justice asked the special master reviewing thousands of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago for attorney-client and other privileges to force former President Donald Trump to verify the inventory through a sworn affidavit.

 

Such an order would compel Trump to affirm or dispute the authenticity of the records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago in August on the record and under penalty of perjury. It would also make the former president provide evidence to his insinuations that documents may have been planted.

 

“The Special Master has received an affidavit of accuracy from the government. Since the Court appointed the Special Master to ensure fairness, integrity, and even-handedness in the review process […], Plaintiff should be required to verify or correct the property inventory just as the government has done,” the Justice Department’s National Security Division chief Jay I. Bratt wrote in a 20-page filing.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

A formal put up or shut up request.

[China]

Trump lawyers say he designated seized Mar-a-Lago documents ‘as personal records’ — DOJ says he can’t do that ‘simply by saying so’

 

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are arguing that hundreds of documents that the FBI seized from his Florida residence are “personal” because he said so.

But federal prosecutors say he cannot deem the records personal “simply by saying so.”

 

In a new court filing, the Department of Justice also accused Trump of “gamesmanship” by saying he will assert executive privilege over dozens of documents if a court-appointed watchdog rejects his claim that they are “personal” in nature.

 

The war over what Trump’s purported words mean is playing out in a federal court in Florida, where the former president’s lawyers and attorneys for the DOJ briefed a judge last week on the status of issues related to the records seized in early August from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. The legal briefs were unsealed Monday.

 

Click on the link for the full article