Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath


Cooked Crack
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/26/2021 at 12:03 PM, China said:

 

Maybe We Should Be Talking More About the Trump Coup Memo

 

Why did TV networks ignore it?
 

There was big news this week on what is known ominously and euphemistically as “the democracy beat,” and like all such news, it was bad. On Tuesday, CNN published a two-page memo written by a lawyer for then-President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign during the run-up to the January 6 certification of the Electoral College results. In six concise bullet-points, the memo outlined a process by which Vice President Mike Pence could use his powers on January 6 to throw out the electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won in the 2020 election. The plan counted on Republicans in those states to submit competing sets of electors, based on the false and fabricated premise that Trump had somehow won those states.

 

The memo’s author, John Eastman, is a lawyer—at the time, he was even a tenured professor at Chapman University School of Law—but what he created is not a legal document. It is by its nature extra-legal: It is a blueprint for a coup.

 

Eastman anticipated the possibility that some people would be mad. “Howls, of course, from the Democrats,” he predicted in bullet-point four, immediately following the line, “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.” Yeah, man, no kidding.

 

It is a little weird to read all these months later about something that was also plain as day at the time. Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of a Barton Gellman article in The Atlantic that laid out the strategy that Trump, with Eastman and others’ help, would pursue. Mother Jones and others covered closely the efforts from the Trump campaign to throw out votes in courts and disenfranchise entire states. My colleague Becca Andrews was even in Atlanta on December 14 when Georgia Republicans showed up at the Capitol to endorse their own pretend slate of Trump electors—a bizarre sideshow that was nonetheless part of a scattershot, collective pretext for the strategy Eastman spelled out. January 6 happened on live TV. But what was described on those couple of pages is what all the stunts and subterfuge were building up to—notes, as it were, on a criminal ****ing conspiracy.

 

There have not been a lot of attempts to depose elected American presidents in my lifetime, though I’m only 34. Not knowing for sure what happens when you dissociate “peaceful transfer of power” from “a society entirely predicated on it,” I sort of think this is a pretty big deal. This is a break-the-glass moment, as some have said, only someone else already broke the glass and took the axe and is running around with it.

 

But it is not such a big deal, apparently, if you watch network TV news. On Wednesday, Media Matters’ Matt Gertz reported that the total number of minutes devoted to the story on either the morning or evening editions of ABC, NBC, or CBS News in the first two days after the memo was published was zero. “In fact,” Gertz wrote, “the only national network broadcasts to mention Trump’s coup memo were the late-night variety shows hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Conservatives try (and fail) to defend pro-Trump Eastman memo

 

When John Eastman wrote a strange opinion piece last summer arguing that future Vice President Kamala Harris was ineligible for national office because her parents were immigrants, he was a relatively obscure national figure. That soon changed.

 

As we've discussed, Eastman last fall began working with Donald Trump — the then-president saw him on Fox News and was impressed — and as part of that work, Eastman filed the brief last December on Trump's behalf that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 presidential election. (It was filled with factual errors — including an obvious one literally on the first page.)

 

Soon after, he authored what's become known as the Eastman Memo, which was effectively a blueprint Republican officials could follow to reject the results of the U.S. election and keep the losing candidate in power. Yesterday, the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that employs Eastman, published a relatively brief defense of the document, suggesting there's been an unfortunate misunderstanding about its author's intentions.

 

The Eastman Memo, according to the Claremont Institute, was simply "legal advice that has since been maliciously misrepresented and distorted by major media outlets." The defense argued:

 

Quote

"Contrary to almost universally false news accounts, which have done great damage, John did not ask the Vice President, who was presiding over the Joint Session of Congress where electoral votes were to be counted on January 6, to 'overturn' the election or to decide the validity of electoral votes."

 

It added that Eastman advised "the Vice President that, despite credible legal arguments to the contrary, the Vice President should regard Congress, not the Vice President, as having the authority to choose between the two slates."

 

This is so difficult to take seriously, it's a bit surprising to see the Claremont Institute put it in print. The argument, to the extent that "argument" is the appropriate word, is that Eastman didn't advise Pence to overturn the election; he simply advised Pence to set a process in motion that would permit Congress to overturn the election.

 

Click on the link for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man who joined Army after Jan. 6 arrested at Fort Bragg in connection with Capitol riot

 

A Fort Bragg soldier is the latest person with North Carolina ties charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

 

James Phillip Mault, of Brockport, N.Y., was arrested on post last week on charges of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon or inflicting bodily injury, civil disorder, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and an act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings.

 

Mault went to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 with a group of friends and was seen in various videos shot during the riot climbing onto the sally port on the west side of the Capitol and spraying "a chemical agent" at law enforcement officers inside, according to a criminal complaint filed by the FBI.

 

Mault told investigators that he was forced toward the Capitol by the crowd and denied entering the building, assaulting anyone or damaging property, according to the complaint.

 

Fort Bragg spokesman Joe Buccino said the Army is cooperating with the FBI's investigation, but he noted that Mault joined the military after Jan. 6.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top conservative lawyers steer clear of Trump's latest legal fight

 

A number of high-powered lawyers who have represented Donald Trump in the past are sitting out his latest legal battle, as the former President prepares to assert executive privilege to block congressional investigators from getting information on the January 6 insurrection.

 

That's left Trump with a relatively small legal team without a lot of experience litigating issues of executive privilege as he readies for a court fight that could test major issues of presidential authority.


Some go-to attorneys have been spooked by Trump's reputation for sometimes not paying as a client, according to several people familiar with conservative legal circles. Others watched closely as lawyers fled Trump's prior teams, frustrated by him as a client or facing their own ethical predicaments. Others still want themselves and their firms to stay far away from Trump's insistence that the election was stolen.


"It's not a 10-foot pole" for law firms distancing themselves from Trump, "it's a 1,000-foot pole," said John Yoo, a University of California at Berkeley law professor who held a senior Justice Department position in the George W. Bush administration.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan. 6 adherents should all be marched through the streets of their communities to chants of Shame Shame Shame ala Cerisi in GoT, although not naked. Then they should all be marched through the streets of DC the same way. Then they should be imprisoned and their voting rights suspended for at least ten years. Make examples of these insurrectionists, including those in Congress.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Jan. 6 adherents should all be marched through the streets of their communities to chants of Shame Shame Shame aka Cerisi in GoT, although not naked. Then they should all be marched through the streets of DC the same way. Then they should be imprisoned and their voting rights suspended for at least ten years. Make examples of these insurrectionists, including those in Congress.

Unfortunately, they would probably be cheered on.   (Just because reasonable folks like us aren't likely to gather in large numbers...)

Vaxxed & masked with like-minded people is the only thing that got me to the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

January 6 panel moves to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt

 

The committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riot announced Thursday it is moving forward to hold Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, as his game of chicken with the House panel now enters a new and critical phase.

 

"Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President's insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, said in a statement on Thursday.

 

Bannon was scheduled for a deposition in front of the committee on Thursday, and Bannon's lawyer wrote in a letter the day before to the panel saying that his client will not provide testimony or documents until the committee reaches an agreement with former President Donald Trump over executive privilege or a court weighs in on the matter.


"We reject his position entirely," Thompson continued in his statement. "The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt."


With the committee officially announcing its decision to move forward with criminal contempt for Bannon, the next step is for the committee to hold a business meeting, which Thompson said would be October 19.

 

The business meeting next week is the first in a series of steps needed to move forward with criminal contempt. In this meeting, the committee will adopt a contempt report, which outlines the efforts the committee made to get a witness to comply with the subpoena, and the failure by the witness to do so.


This report is then referred to the House for a vote. If the vote succeeds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Under law, this certification then requires the United States attorney to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," but the Justice Department will also makes its own determinations for prosecuting.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Glad they're moving forward with criminal contempt, but good lord what an overly slow and bureaucratic process.

Edited by China
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, China said:

January 6 panel moves to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt

 

The committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riot announced Thursday it is moving forward to hold Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, as his game of chicken with the House panel now enters a new and critical phase.

 

"Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President's insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, said in a statement on Thursday.

 

Bannon was scheduled for a deposition in front of the committee on Thursday, and Bannon's lawyer wrote in a letter the day before to the panel saying that his client will not provide testimony or documents until the committee reaches an agreement with former President Donald Trump over executive privilege or a court weighs in on the matter.


"We reject his position entirely," Thompson continued in his statement. "The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt."


With the committee officially announcing its decision to move forward with criminal contempt for Bannon, the next step is for the committee to hold a business meeting, which Thompson said would be October 19.

 

The business meeting next week is the first in a series of steps needed to move forward with criminal contempt. In this meeting, the committee will adopt a contempt report, which outlines the efforts the committee made to get a witness to comply with the subpoena, and the failure by the witness to do so.


This report is then referred to the House for a vote. If the vote succeeds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Under law, this certification then requires the United States attorney to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," but the Justice Department will also makes its own determinations for prosecuting.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Glad they're moving forward with criminal contempt, but good lord what an overly slow and bureaucratic process.

Less talk, more action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, China said:

 

 

And then it will get gummed up in the courts for a year, and if the Republicans take the House in 2022 they'll dissolve the January 6th committee, and none of them will face any repercussions or have to testify.

 

If you're in contempt of court you usually go to jail; no reason contempt of Congress should be any different.

 

They should charge these people, put them in jail immediately, and then let them sit there while it makes its way through the court system. It won't take long before they cave and agree to testify.

 

But this is the Feckless Dems, so they'll never do that. 

 

Nothing will happen and this will go nowheree.

Edited by mistertim
  • Thanks 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

And then it will get gummed up in the courts for a year, and if the Republicans take the House in 2022 they'll dissolve the January 6th committee, and none of them will face any repercussions or have to testify.

 

If you're in contempt of court you usually go to jail; no reason contempt of Congress should be any different.

 

They should charge these people, put them in jail immediately, and then let them sit there while it makes its way through the court system. It won't take long before they cave and agree to testify.

 

But this is the Feckless Dems, so they'll never do that. 

 

Nothing will happen and this will go nowheree.

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infowars Host Begs Judge to Drop Riot Charges: I’m Like Jesus!

 

In a truly bizarre attempt to get his charges dismissed for his alleged role in the Capitol riots, Infowars host Jonathon Owen Shroyer compared his conduct to that of Jesus Christ or the Dalai Lama. The comparison was among several arguments Shroyer made in a Thursday motion to dismiss the two misdemeanors charges he faces in connection with the Capitol riots. He also insisted that he’s a member of the press and that the government invited him onto federal grounds by removing the barricades that allowed hundreds of rioters to eventually break into the building. Shroyer also argued that if his actions that day “amount to disorderly conduct, then Jesus Christ or the Dalai Lama would have been arrested for trying to be a peacemaker.”

 

Prosecutors allege that the host of the Infowars program War Room With Owen Shroyer marched to the Capitol with several other Trump supporters. He was heard on a video telling the crowd: “Today we march for the Capitol because on this historic January 6, 2021, we have to let our Congressmen and women know, and we have to let Mike Pence know, they stole the election, we know they stole it, and we aren’t going to accept it!” Shroyer was then seen on video on the west side of the Capitol and the top of the stairs on the east side of the federal building, according to charging documents.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch: Psaki Promises Reporter President Biden ‘Has No Intention to Lead an Insurrection’

 

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared to gently mock a reporter who suggested President Joe Biden should not have refused to invoke executive privilege on his predecessor’s communications regarding the January 6 insurrection.

 

CBS News’ Ed O’Keefe asked if President Biden might have just been short-sighted by allowing the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack access to a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump tried to block, citing executive privilege he does not have.

 

“I can assure you, Ed, that this President has no intention to lead an insurrection on this nation’s Capitol,” Psaki quipped.

 

O’Keefe claimed Biden was opening a “Pandora’s Box” by allowing information the previous president claimed should not be made public.

 

Psaki said it is “incredibly important” for Americans to understand and remember that “January 6 was an incredibly dark day, one of the darkest days in our democracy. There was an insurrection on our nation’s capitol. What we’re talking about here is getting to the bottom of that. Shouldn’t everyone want to get to the bottom of that?”

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 5
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

90 SECONDS OF RAGE

 

The American flag became a blunt instrument in the bearded man’s hands. Wielding the flagpole like an ax, he swung once, twice, three times, to beat a police officer being dragged down the steps of a United States Capitol under siege.

 

Other officers also fell under mob attack, while the rest fought to keep the hordes from storming the Capitol and upending the routine transfer of power. Sprayed chemicals choked the air, projectiles flew overhead and the unbridled roars formed a battle-cry din — all as a woman lay dying beneath the jostling scrum of the Jan. 6 riot.

 

Amid the hand-to-hand combat, seven men from seven different states stood out. Although strangers to one another, they worked as if in concert while grappling with the phalanx of police officers barring entry to the Capitol.

 

The moment was a flicker in the chaotic panorama, a 90-second flash of unhinged violence overshadowed by the high drama inside, where rioters menaced in packs, legislators hid in fear and a protester was shot to death.

 

Click on the link for the full story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HBO Exposes the Violent Chaos of Trump’s Jan. 6 Rioters in ‘Four Hours at the Capitol’

 

For those eager to revisit one of the darkest days in American history, Four Hours at the Capitol provides a first-hand account of the insurrection carried out by then-President Donald Trump’s delusional acolytes on Jan. 6, 2021. Culled from numerous up-close-and-personal video sources, and narrated by congressmen, journalists, and traitorous Proud Boys and “activists” who participated in the attack, it’s a time capsule that’s short on context—and condemnation of the numerous figures responsible for inciting the mêlée—but long on harrowing and damning footage of the disgraceful assault.

 

Director Jamie Roberts’ feature-length HBO documentary (Oct. 20) features no prologue covering the 2020 presidential election that concluded with Donald Trump decisively losing to Joe Biden, or Trump’s subsequent promulgation of the “Big Lie” which stated that he’d been cheated out of a second term due to “election fraud” that innumerable legislatures and courts—many overseen by Republicans—confirmed did not exist. Nor does it cover both the efforts of congressional Republicans to back Trump’s “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theory by refusing to certify the election’s results, and national right-wing media’s endless coverage of this fictional miscarriage of justice. The result is a narrowly focused work that, by eschewing the bigger picture, feels like only half the story, concerned far more with experiential you-are-there horror than comprehensive censure.

 

Four Hours at the Capitol would have benefited from more coverage of Trump, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rudy Giuliani stirring the pot for weeks and months before Jan. 6, intent on convincing their supporters that some great democracy-undermining travesty was taking place. Instead, it assumes viewers know that backstory, and simply sets about situating them in the thick of the abominable action. The film begins at 10:35 am, with wheelchair-bound Proud Boy Eddie Block videotaping himself and his white-nationalist buddies as they attend Trump’s speech (during which the president tells his followers, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”), and then take his advice and head to the Capitol. There, they and many other faux-patriots rile themselves up with chants like “**** ANTIFA!” and “1776”—the latter a revolutionary rallying cry that misses the point that this 2021 rebellion is against the United States—until they all finally decide that words aren’t enough and begin storming the insufficiently defended barricades.

 

 

Click on the link for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump concedes to being 'former president' in Capitol riot lawsuit

 

Donald Trump, who claims he never conceded the 2020 election, establishes himself as a former president in his lawsuit against the Capitol riot committee and National Archives.

The passage appears on page 11 of the complaint filed in federal court on Monday.

 

"Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States. President Trump brings this suit solely in his official capacity as a former President under the PRA, associated regulations, the Executive Order, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Constitution of the United States," the lawsuit states.

 

The phrasing caught the eye of New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who has covered Trump for years.

 

"I don’t know how serious this suit is. It is notable that the suit actually refers to him as 'former President' Trump, which is something they've stayed away from. But Trump is going to do everything he can to try to drag this out as long as possible," she said on CNN.

 

The complaint, filed by Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall, who helped attorney Sidney Powell represent former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in his FBI perjury case, seeks to block the release of documents to the Jan. 6 panel, challenging President Joe Biden's decision to waive executive privilege.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...