Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath


Cooked Crack
 Share

Recommended Posts

Army Vet Seen with ‘Boogaloo’ Patch on His Body Armor Pleads Not Guilty to Jan. 6 Charges

 

A Michigan man who served more than three years in the Army and appears to support the “Boogaloo” extremist militia movement has pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from his alleged role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

 

Steven Thurlow, appearing remotely, was arraigned in federal court Tuesday on charges that he entered the Capitol building along with hundreds of Donald Trump supporters in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.

 

Federal documents show Thurlow posting pictures of himself and taking videos inside the Capitol that day.

 

“Thurlow can be observed walking through the halls of the Senate side of the Capitol building,” the complaint says. “Thurlow is observed walking through the hallways holding up a cell phone and recording the events as they are happening.”

 

Thurlow also apparently bragged about defying law enforcement efforts to beat back the rioters who were attempting to breach the Capitol.

 

AAPIyKy.img?w=768&h=401&m=6

 

“The commies just fired this riot disbursement [sic] device at us,” the caption said. “Guess what, we didn’t disperse.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama DOJ official outlines three 'fundamental problems' with Trump's Capitol riot lawsuit

 

A top official from the Obama-era Justice Department cited multiple weaknesses with former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Capitol riot committee and the National Archives.

 

Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general of the United States between 2010 and 2011, outlined three "fundamental problems" with the complaint filed in federal court on Monday that seeks to block the release of documents to the Jan. 6 panel and challenge President Joe Biden's decision to waive executive privilege .

 

"One, Donald Trump is no longer the president, and the Supreme Court has said, really, the privilege is held by the incumbent. And Trump literally filed this lawsuit. He said — quote — 'In his capacity as the 45th president of the United States.' That's a title with about as much legal significance as, you know, also-ran in the 2005 Emmy Awards or something. Zero significance," Katyal said on MSNBC's The Beat with Ari Melber.

 

Second, he said, was the scope. "When Congress created executive privilege to protect what they call the deliberative process, I don't think the deliberation they had in mind was trying to overthrow democracy. So I just don't think that privilege applies to this kind of stuff," Katyal said.

 

"And then, thirdly," he added, "the claims themselves in the lawsuit. Like, literally, the lawsuit says that Congress is acting — quote — 'vexatious' in an 'illegal fishing operation,' which is kind of rich coming from a guy who wanted the Justice Department to investigate whether Italians beamed in Biden ballots from space and stuff."

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

Edited by China
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, China said:

And then, thirdly," he added, "the claims themselves in the lawsuit. Like, literally, the lawsuit says that Congress is acting — quote — 'vexatious' in an 'illegal fishing operation,' which is kind of rich coming from a guy who wanted the Justice Department to investigate whether Italians beamed in Biden ballots from space and stuff."


bb894.JPG

 

Laugh while you can, monkey boy. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lawyer Behind Trump’s Infamous Jan. 6 Memo Has a Galling New Defense

 

As the California state bar considers whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings against John Eastman for his role in Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election, the former dean of Chapman Law School has begun to mount a defense of his infamous legal memo on the “January 6 scenario.” In that memo, Eastman “war gam[es]” alternatives for allowing Mike Pence, in discharging his constitutional duty as vice president to count electoral votes, to discard votes from seven swing states, all of which had duly certified electors for Joe Biden at the time the memo was written. Just like the content of his memo, Eastman’s defense threatens to subvert democratic institutions and established legal principles, this time by wriggling out of his responsibility as a lawyer sworn to uphold the rule of law to provide legal advice in accordance with professional standards of rigor, honesty, and justice—standards enforced by the state bar. By now arguing—despite the written words on the pages that he himself authored outlining how to circumvent the law—that he orally counseled Pence to follow the law, Eastman seeks to avoid the bar’s authority to sanction lawyer misconduct based on documents providing improper legal advice. This defense, like the underlying advice, relies on misrepresentations that cannot go unchallenged.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Jordan Struggles To Answer House Panel's Questions About Jan. 6 Trump Calls

 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) confirmed on Wednesday to a House panel that he had spoken with then-President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol but contradicted a previous answer about the timeline of calls that day.

 

The House Rules Committee grilled Jordan, a potential witness in the House investigation of the attack, about his communications with Trump while he was testifying against a resolution to hold former Trump aide Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.

 

House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D- Mass.) asked Jordan about interviews he gave over the summer admitting he had spoken with Trump on Jan. 6.

 

In July, Jordan told Fox News’ Bret Baier that he and Trump had spoken, but changed the subject when asked what they’d discussed. Pressed to elaborate on Spectrum News the following day, Jordan said he believed he had spoken to Trump after the riot but wasn’t sure, and couldn’t recall if they had spoken in the morning. “I’d have to go back,” he said.

 

And then, in August, Jordan told Politico he had “definitely” spoken to the president more than once that day but couldn’t remember when. He told the site one of those calls was from a safe room during the attack.

 

“So, my question is: You’ve had 84 days since that interview [on Spectrum News] to go back and check the records. So, when did you speak with the former President on January 6th?” McGovern asked.

 

Jordan did not directly answer the question.

 

“Of course I talked to the president. I’ve been clear about that. I talk to him all the time. This is not about me, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to make it about me,” he said before changing direction to say the focus of the investigation should be on the “lack of security presence” on Jan. 6.

 

Jordan said he couldn’t remember how many times he’d spoken with Trump.

 

McGovern pressed again, asking him to clarify if it was before, during or after the assault on the Capitol.

 

“I talked to the president after the attack,” Jordan said. He said he did not speak to him before or during, contradicting what he had told Politico.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘Act of War’: Trump Blasted for ‘Chilling’ Statement Calling Election an ‘Insurrection’

 

Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former president, on Thursday issued what is being called a “chilling” statement on the election and the insurrection he incited.

 

“The insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day. January 6 was the Protest!” Trump said in a statement released Thursday afternoon.

 

Former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh simply and clearly calls it an “act of war.”

 

 

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) during debate on the House floor has “repeatedly” been “calling on Republicans to denounce the Trump statement,” according to reporter Jamie Dupree.

 

“All my colleagues were elected on November 3,” McGovern said. “If you believe that Election Day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate.”

 

Click on the link for the full story

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WATCH: Louie Gohmert Asks Why Jan. 6th Insurrectionists Aren’t Treated Like Civil Rights Icon John Lewis

 

The Texas congressman wondered why the mob that stormed the Capitol building aren’t being treated the same as John Lewis.

 

Gohmert said on the floor:

 

Quote

“On June 22 of 2016, judge, most of the Democrat members of Congress took over the House floor, and, for the first time in American history, members of Congress obstructed official proceedings. Not for four to six hours, but for virtually 26 hours. Not just violating over a dozen House rules, but actually committing the felony that some of the Jan. 6 people are charged with.

 

That was during the Obama administration, nobody’s been charged, and those kinda things—where you let Democrat members of Congress off for the very thing that you’re viciously going after people that were protesting on Jan. 6—gives people the indication that there is a two-tiered justice system here in America.”

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

  • Haha 1
  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'You're a joke': Greene clashes with Cheney, Raskin on House floor

 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), tangled with two members of the Jan. 6 committee on the House floor Thursday, getting into an impromptu shouting match over Black Lives Matter and a wild conspiracy theory about Jewish space lasers starting California wildfires. 

 

Greene, a top Trump loyalist, crossed the aisle and approached Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) as voting began on a resolution holding a former adviser of former President Trump, Stephen Bannon, in contempt for defying panel subpoenas.

 

Greene first pressed Raskin — who led the Democrats’ prosecution of Trump during his impeachment trial after the Jan. 6 attack — asking him when he would investigate the violence surrounding the Black Lives Matter protests, according to Raskin.

 

“Like with Kyle Rittenhouse who went and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters?” Raskin replied to her. “I'm sure there will be an opportunity for us to get to that.”

 

“This is a joke,” Greene said, her voice rising, referring to the Jan. 6 investigation and the Bannon contempt vote. “Why don’t you investigate something people actually care about?”

Cheney shot back that Greene was “a joke” and that she should be focusing on Jewish space lasers, a reference to a conspiracy theory Greene previously had promoted on Facebook blaming “space lasers” controlled by a powerful Jewish family for starting wildfires in California. 

 

“I never said that! You’re done. You’re a joke!” Greene yelled at Cheney, according to CNN. "Why don’t you go investigate something that matters to the American people?”

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 9:03 AM, China said:

The Lawyer Behind Trump’s Infamous Jan. 6 Memo Has a Galling New Defense

 

As the California state bar considers whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings against John Eastman for his role in Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election, the former dean of Chapman Law School has begun to mount a defense of his infamous legal memo on the “January 6 scenario.” In that memo, Eastman “war gam[es]” alternatives for allowing Mike Pence, in discharging his constitutional duty as vice president to count electoral votes, to discard votes from seven swing states, all of which had duly certified electors for Joe Biden at the time the memo was written. Just like the content of his memo, Eastman’s defense threatens to subvert democratic institutions and established legal principles, this time by wriggling out of his responsibility as a lawyer sworn to uphold the rule of law to provide legal advice in accordance with professional standards of rigor, honesty, and justice—standards enforced by the state bar. By now arguing—despite the written words on the pages that he himself authored outlining how to circumvent the law—that he orally counseled Pence to follow the law, Eastman seeks to avoid the bar’s authority to sanction lawyer misconduct based on documents providing improper legal advice. This defense, like the underlying advice, relies on misrepresentations that cannot go unchallenged.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

John Eastman vs. the Eastman Memo

 

n January 6, President Donald Trump took the stage at the “Save America Rally” near the White House where he spoke for more than an hour about how the worst political crime in history was about to be carried out down the street inside the U.S. Capitol.

 

But the fight wasn’t over, Trump insisted, as he told the crowd that one man — Vice President Mike Pence — had the power to “stop the steal.”

 

“All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people,” Trump said. “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do.”

 

Two speakers immediately preceded Trump on stage that day: Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, legal advisers to Trump who made the case that Pence could and should prevent the counting of slates of certified Electoral College votes that day.

 

“Every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal,” Giuliani said at the rally. He continued (emphasis added):

 

Quote

I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States. It is perfectly appropriate given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act [sic] of 1887 that the Vice President can cast it aside and he can do what a president called Jefferson did when he was vice president. He can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots, or he can send it back to the legislatures — give them five to 10 days to finally finish the work.

 

When Eastman spoke that day, he echoed Giuliani’s claims regarding the conspiracy theory that voting machines had fraudulently changed the vote tallies in Georgia. “We now know, because we caught it live last time in real time, how the machines contributed to that fraud,” Eastman said of the Georgia Senate and 2020 presidential-election results. “They put those ballots in a secret folder in the machines, sitting there waiting until they know how many they need.”

 

As for the electoral-vote tally at the Capitol, Eastman made the case that “all we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at one o’clock he let the legislatures of the states look into this so that we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not! We no longer live in a self-governing republic if we can’t get the answer to this question!”

 

But Eastman now tells National Review in an interview that the first of the two strategies Giuliani highlighted on stage — having Pence reject electoral votes — was not “viable” and would have been “crazy” to pursue.

 

What makes that admission remarkable is that Eastman was the author of the now-infamous legal memo making the case that Pence had that very power — that the vice president was the “ultimate arbiter” of deciding whether to count Electoral College votes.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, once these yahoo lawyers have to testify under oath to their statements made in the media, they have to disavow them because the statements are lies, they can lose their law licenses and be prosecuted for perjury. Every single one of these liars have backed down in open court when forced to testify as to the truth of their lawsuits and affidavits, media statements, or any other utterance written or oral. This includes Guiliani in my hometown of Williamsport PA in federal court regarding his spurious lawsuit, he couldn't testify as to the validity of his affidavits. Lawsuit dismissed.

 

This refusal to lie under oath about their lies needs to be published and publisized every day. 

 

 

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

Litman: Don't be too sure about the DOJ's 'duty' to indict Bannon

 

Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland has a far more complicated decision coming his way than people realize.

 

The Department of Justice, in the person of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, has received a referral from the House of Representatives to bring criminal contempt charges against Stephen K. Bannon, who has refused to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6.

 

The righteousness of the referral is not in doubt. There is every reason to think Bannon has important first-hand information about the planning of the Capitol attack. After all, he crowed the night before on his podcast: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow…. Strap in.”

 

In addition, as the committee’s vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), emphasized Tuesday, there is strong reason to think Bannon knows if and how Trump was “personally involved” in the Jan. 6 attack. No matter is more important for Congress to probe or for the American public to understand.

 

As for Bannon’s thumbing his nose at a subpoena, it could not be a more flagrant or a more contemptuous violation of the law.

 

Under the statute that governs contempt referrals, once Congress has found someone in contempt, it is the "duty" of the United States attorney "to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

 

So what happens next should be a slam dunk, right? But it isn't.

 

As it turns out, the Department of Justice has emphatically pushed back against contempt referrals related to the executive branch.

 

The Office of Legal Counsel, the DOJ’s legal advisor to the president, is responsible for opinions that will cast a large shadow on Garland’s decision. Remember that certain legal counsel memos, including these, are binding on the executive branch. (One such memo, which concluded that a sitting president couldn't be indicted, drove Robert S. Mueller III's declining to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.)

 

------------

 

Garland has proved to be a cautious, process-oriented attorney general, and one dedicated to justice. The Office of Legal Counsel memos and the Supreme Court’s language in Nixon vs. General Services Administration guarantee an ultra-thorough decision-making process that weighs all the considerations raised by the Bannon contempt referral.

 

Bannon deserves to be convicted of criminal contempt. But we shouldn’t assume we know which way Garland will go.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any precedent is BS.  What is happening is unprecedented and dangerous.  State amd local election are being packed by pro-Trump loyalists.  And people like Manchin Sinema and all the GOP are doing nothing to prevent 2021 from happening in 2025.  

 

I don't want to sound the alarm too early, but a 2024 election getting kicked to the Supreme Court, where 3 Trump appointees rule on shady election shenangians.... will make Bush v. Gore look like a cakewalk.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahead of Jan. 6, Willard hotel in downtown D.C. was a Trump team ‘command center’ for effort to deny Biden the presidency

 

They called it the “command center,” a set of rooms and suites in the posh Willard hotel a block from the White House where some of President Donald Trump’s most loyal lieutenants were working day and night with one goal in mind: overturning the results of the 2020 election.

 

The Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse and the ensuing attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob would draw the world’s attention to the quest to physically block Congress from affirming Joe Biden’s victory. But the activities at the Willard that week add to an emerging picture of a less visible effort, mapped out in memos by a conservative pro-Trump legal scholar and pursued by a team of presidential advisers and lawyers seeking to pull off what they claim was a legal strategy to reinstate Trump for a second term.

 

They were led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Former chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon was an occasional presence as the effort’s senior political adviser. Former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik was there as an investigator. Also present was John Eastman, the scholar, who outlined scenarios for denying Biden the presidency in an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4 with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

 

They sought to make the case to Pence and ramp up pressure on him to take actions on Jan. 6 that Eastman suggested were within his powers, three people familiar with the operation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Their activities included finding and publicizing alleged evidence of fraud, urging members of state legislatures to challenge Biden’s victory and calling on the Trump-supporting public to press Republican officials in key states.

 

The effort underscores the extent to which Trump and a handful of true believers were working until the last possible moment to subvert the will of the voters, seeking to pressure Pence to delay or even block certification of the election, leveraging any possible constitutional loophole to test the boundaries of American democracy.

 

“I firmly believed then, as I believe now, that the vice president — as president of the Senate — had the constitutional power to send the issue back to the states for 10 days to investigate the widespread fraud and report back well in advance of Inauguration Day, January 20th,” one of those present, senior campaign aide and former White House special assistant Boris Epshteyn, told The Washington Post. “Our efforts were focused on conveying that message.”

 

In seeking to compel testimony from Bannon, the congressional panel investigating Jan. 6 this week cited his reported presence at the “ ‘war room’ organized at the Willard.” The House voted Thursday to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

 

The committee has also requested documents and communications related to Eastman’s legal advice and analysis.

 

Eastman told The Post on Wednesday that he has not yet been contacted by the House select committee investigating the insurrection. Asked about his involvement in the Trump team’s operation at the Willard, Eastman said: “To the extent I was there, those were attorney discussions. You don’t get any comment from me on those.”

 

In May, Eastman indicated that he was at the hotel with Giuliani on the morning of Jan. 6. “We had a war room at the Willard . . . kind of coordinating all of the communications,” he told talk show host Peter Boyles, comments first reported in the newsletter Proof.

 

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, did not respond to requests for comment.

 

Also present was One America News reporter Christina Bobb, a lawyer by training who was volunteering for the campaign at the time, according to people familiar with the operation. Bobb declined to comment.

 

Kerik said his firm billed the Trump campaign more than $55,000 for rooms for the legal team. The former police commissioner, who was helping to head up efforts to collect and investigate allegations of election fraud, was later reimbursed, records show.

 

The three people familiar with the operation described intense work in the days and hours leading up to and even extending beyond 1 p.m. on Jan 6, when Congress convened for the counting of electoral votes.

 

In those first days in January, from the command center, Trump allies were calling members of Republican-dominated legislatures in swing states that Eastman had spotlighted in his memos, including Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, encouraging them to convene special sessions to investigate fraud and to reassign electoral college votes from Biden to Trump, two of the people familiar with the operation said.

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

January 6 defendant spoke at far-right rally attended by Proud Boys, despite court order against associating with the group

 

An Arizona political commentator charged in the US Capitol riot spoke at a small right-wing rally in Phoenix last month that was attended by over a dozen Proud Boys, even though a federal judge had ordered him not to associate with any members of the extremist group.

 

Pictures posted online and a video obtained by CNN from an attendee show Micajah Jackson near a group of Proud Boys, spouting conspiracies about January 6. This raises questions of whether he violated the conditions of his pre-trial release, or at the least gave fresh material to prosecutors that they could use against him in court, as they have in other Capitol riot cases.


Jackson spoke at the Sept. 26 event, organized by Look Ahead America, the group that held a similar rally in Washington, DC, to support defendants charged in the pro-Trump insurrection.


One picture, posted by Jackson on Twitter, shows him posing with a Republican congressional candidate who praised the Proud Boys in attendance during his speech that day. 

 

Jackson's attorney told CNN that Jackson had no knowledge the Proud Boys would be attending and that he is complying with the terms of his release. She added that the Justice Department is aware of his participation in the rally, but hasn't flagged it to the judge or tried to revoke his bail.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

They should revoke his bail

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, China said:

Ahead of Jan. 6, Willard hotel in downtown D.C. was a Trump team ‘command center’ for effort to deny Biden the presidency

 

They called it the “command center,” a set of rooms and suites in the posh Willard hotel a block from the White House where some of President Donald Trump’s most loyal lieutenants were working day and night with one goal in mind: overturning the results of the 2020 election.

 

The Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse and the ensuing attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob would draw the world’s attention to the quest to physically block Congress from affirming Joe Biden’s victory. But the activities at the Willard that week add to an emerging picture of a less visible effort, mapped out in memos by a conservative pro-Trump legal scholar and pursued by a team of presidential advisers and lawyers seeking to pull off what they claim was a legal strategy to reinstate Trump for a second term.

 

They were led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Former chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon was an occasional presence as the effort’s senior political adviser. Former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik was there as an investigator. Also present was John Eastman, the scholar, who outlined scenarios for denying Biden the presidency in an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4 with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

 

They sought to make the case to Pence and ramp up pressure on him to take actions on Jan. 6 that Eastman suggested were within his powers, three people familiar with the operation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Their activities included finding and publicizing alleged evidence of fraud, urging members of state legislatures to challenge Biden’s victory and calling on the Trump-supporting public to press Republican officials in key states.

 

The effort underscores the extent to which Trump and a handful of true believers were working until the last possible moment to subvert the will of the voters, seeking to pressure Pence to delay or even block certification of the election, leveraging any possible constitutional loophole to test the boundaries of American democracy.

 

“I firmly believed then, as I believe now, that the vice president — as president of the Senate — had the constitutional power to send the issue back to the states for 10 days to investigate the widespread fraud and report back well in advance of Inauguration Day, January 20th,” one of those present, senior campaign aide and former White House special assistant Boris Epshteyn, told The Washington Post. “Our efforts were focused on conveying that message.”

 

In seeking to compel testimony from Bannon, the congressional panel investigating Jan. 6 this week cited his reported presence at the “ ‘war room’ organized at the Willard.” The House voted Thursday to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

 

The committee has also requested documents and communications related to Eastman’s legal advice and analysis.

 

Eastman told The Post on Wednesday that he has not yet been contacted by the House select committee investigating the insurrection. Asked about his involvement in the Trump team’s operation at the Willard, Eastman said: “To the extent I was there, those were attorney discussions. You don’t get any comment from me on those.”

 

In May, Eastman indicated that he was at the hotel with Giuliani on the morning of Jan. 6. “We had a war room at the Willard . . . kind of coordinating all of the communications,” he told talk show host Peter Boyles, comments first reported in the newsletter Proof.

 

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, did not respond to requests for comment.

 

Also present was One America News reporter Christina Bobb, a lawyer by training who was volunteering for the campaign at the time, according to people familiar with the operation. Bobb declined to comment.

 

Kerik said his firm billed the Trump campaign more than $55,000 for rooms for the legal team. The former police commissioner, who was helping to head up efforts to collect and investigate allegations of election fraud, was later reimbursed, records show.

 

The three people familiar with the operation described intense work in the days and hours leading up to and even extending beyond 1 p.m. on Jan 6, when Congress convened for the counting of electoral votes.

 

In those first days in January, from the command center, Trump allies were calling members of Republican-dominated legislatures in swing states that Eastman had spotlighted in his memos, including Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, encouraging them to convene special sessions to investigate fraud and to reassign electoral college votes from Biden to Trump, two of the people familiar with the operation said.

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

Seth Abramson wrote about this back in February.  It’s wild how the media is putting out this story 8 months later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, nothing to see here. ****ing traitors.

 

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

 

As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.

Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

...

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.

And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.”

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-jan-6-protest-organizers-003326225.html

Edited by EmirOfShmo
  • Thumb down 2
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...