Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath


Cooked Crack
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

 

 


I'd find this news a lot more cheering if the various commissions would do something above and beyond simply issuing subpoenas, waiting a few weeks, then issue some more, without even getting anything from the first set. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting video in that thread. 

 

 

This is a very detailed (long) account of how the Feds are tracking the insurrectionists through their cellphones, including the burner phones. 

I just stumbled on this today & see it was from October 28th. Sorry if it was posted before today.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court order in Jan. 6 documents case may be bad sign for Trump

 

A federal court order late Tuesday may be a worrisome sign for former President Donald Trump in his effort to assert executive privilege over documents sought by a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

 

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia notified lawyers for Trump, the House committee and the National Archives that they should be prepared to address whether the court even has the legal authority to hear the dispute. Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 30.

 

The committee investigating the riot has asked the National Archives to turn over scores of Trump administration documents — including memos, emails, records of White House conversations and visitor logs — as it investigates the origins of the attack.

 

The House panel is seeking Trump's records from the Archives because the agency maintains all documents from past administrations. Trump claimed executive privilege over some of the material, but President Joe Biden said the records should be released to Congress, citing the importance of the bipartisan committee's work.

 

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan this month ordered the Archives to hand over the material, but the appeals court granted a brief stay to take a longer look at the issue.

 

Late Tuesday, the appeals court ordered the lawyers in the case to be prepared to address the jurisdiction issue. The fact that the court is wondering about its own authority to take up the case is telling: Courts are typically protective of their jurisdictions.

 

The court raised the question on its own, meaning it was not suggested by the lawyers in the case. It asked: "Does the provision in the Presidential Records Act providing that the Archivist’s 'determination whether access to a Presidential record ... shall be restricted ... shall not be subject to judicial review, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section' ... implicate this court’s or the district court’s jurisdiction in this case?"

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

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

 

Capitol riot suspect’s court hearing turns to potential criminal charge for Trump

 

The judge and lawyers discuss whether the then-president’s pressure on Vice President Mike Pence could have amounted to obstruction.

 

Could former President Donald Trump be charged with a crime for urging then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral vote tally?

 

That appeared to be the thrust of a question U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols posed on Monday at a court hearing for one of the hundreds of Americans charged in the Capitol riot.

The judge and both sides in the case found themselves debating the scope of a law being wielded against many Jan. 6 defendants that makes it a felony to “corruptly” interfere with an official federal government proceeding and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

 

The statute is typically applied to court-related conduct, like threatening judges, jurors or witnesses. However, prosecutors have leveled the obstruction charge against about a third of the roughly 700 Jan. 6 defendants over their alleged efforts to disrupt the electoral vote tally that Congress was undertaking when a crowd loyal to Trump broke through police lines and forced their way into the Capitol.

 

At a hearing on Monday for defendant Garret Miller of Richardson, Texas, Nichols made the first move toward a Trump analogy by asking a prosecutor whether the obstruction statute could have been violated by someone who simply “called Vice President Pence to seek to have him adjudge the certification in a particular way.” The judge also asked the prosecutor to assume the person trying to persuade Pence had the “appropriate mens rea,” or guilty mind, to be responsible for a crime.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

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

Bret Baier and Chris Wallace Complained to Fox News Heads About Tucker Carlson Capitol Riot Special (Report)

 

Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Chris Wallace bristled at the direction the network is headed, skewing away from news and more towards a nearly full-time editorial bent, according to a lengthy report by NPR.

 

Baier and Wallace, according to the report, “shared their objections with Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and its president of news, Jay Wallace.” The objections eventually made their way to Lachlan Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of the network’s parent company, Fox Corporation.

 

Fox News representatives declined to offer statements regarding Baier and Wallace, and Murdoch didn’t immediately respond to TheWrap’s request for comment.

 

NPR’s report comes the day after news broke that two longtime Fox News commentators, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, quit following the release of a trailer for Tucker Carlson’s Capitol Riot special report, “Patriot Purge,” which supports and amplifies false claims and conspiracy theories about the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

 

“It’s basically saying that the Biden regime is coming after half the country and this is the War on Terror 2.0,” Goldberg told NPR. “It traffics in all manner of innuendo and conspiracy theories that I think legitimately could lead to violence. That for me, and for Steve, was the last straw.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Jordan Could Be Heading To Jail As He Refuses To Comply With Any 1/6 Committee Subpoena

 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that if he is subpoenaed, he will not be cooperating with the 1/6 Committee.

 

Spectrum News reported on their interview with Jordan:

 

In an interview with Spectrum News on Nov. 18, Jordan said his office has not received any requests. He wouldn’t commit to cooperating if it does.

 

Jordan was asked, if the committee does reach out and request anything, would he be open to providing it.

 

“Depends what it is,” Jordan said. “I mean, I’m not going to answer hypothetical questions, but I just think this is a complete sham, what these guys are doing.”

 

In a separate part of the interview, Jordan was asked if he checked exactly how many times he spoke with Trump that day and when.

 

“Nope,” Jordan said.

 

He was asked if the committee asks him to provide that information, would he be open to sharing phone records.

 

“Same response I gave you before,” Jordan said. “This is a total political committee.”

 

It is likely that Rep. Jordan is going to be subpoenaed, and if he defies that subpoena, he will be referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Any case where a Trump coup participant gets indicted will not go away if Republicans take back the House in 2022.

 

Click on the link for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What The Jan. 6 Committee Wants From Its Latest Subpoena Targets

 

The Jan. 6 Committee made public ten subpoenas it issued this week, signaling a new direction for the probe: the far-right, its fever swamps, and its paramilitaries.

 

The panel is casting a wide net in its investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection, taking it to include the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and attempts by President Trump — starting in spring 2020 — to subvert the results.

 

The subpoenas issued this week mark a level of progress in the investigation: they cite and reveal information that the panel has gathered in the course of its probe.

 

But they also reveal where Congress is looking next. In this case, it’s the assortment of far-right provocateurs like Alex Jones and Roger Stone that breathed life into the Big Lie, MAGA operatives who helped stage the rally on the ellipse on Jan. 6 at which Trump spoke, and organizations like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys whose members were willing to use violence to block the certification of Joe Biden’s win.

 

Here’s what the committee wants to learn from each.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Thing: Trump called aides at command center hours before Capitol riot

 

Good morning.

 

Sources have told the Guardian that just hours before the deadly attack on the US Capitol this year, Donald Trump made several calls from the White House to top lieutenants at the Willard hotel in Washington to discuss ways to stop or delay the certification of Joe Biden’s election win from taking place on 6 January.

 

The former president relayed that his vice-president, Mike Pence, was reluctant to go along with the plan to commandeer his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress in a way that would allow Trump to retain the presidency for a second term.

 

He then pressed his aides about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place, and delay the certification process to get alternate slates of electors for Trump sent to Congress.

 

Trump’s remarks reveal a direct line from the White House and the command center at the Willard. The conversations also show Trump’s thoughts appear to be in line with the motivations of the pro-Trump mob that carried out the Capitol attack.

 

He phoned his lieutenants at the Willard sometime between the late evening on 5 January and the early hours of 6 January after becoming furious at Pence for refusing to do him a final favor.

 

Meanwhile, the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack has recommended the criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Clark.

 

 

 

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

 

Capitol riot panel to vote for contempt charges against Trump DoJ official

 

The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack announced on Monday that it will vote to recommend the criminal prosecution of top former Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark after he defied a subpoena seeking his cooperation with the inquiry.

 

The move to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Clark reflects the select committee’s aggressive approach to warn recalcitrant witnesses against attempting to derail their investigation as Trump tried during his administration.

 

Members on the select committee will convene on Wednesday evening to vote on the contempt report – which is expected to be unanimous, according to a source familiar with the matter – and send it to a vote before the full House of Representatives.

 

The select committee issued a subpoena to Clark last month in order to understand how the Trump White House sought to co-opt officials at the justice department to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory from taking place on 6 January.

 

“We need to understand Mr Clark’s role in these efforts at the justice department and learn who was involved across the administration. The select committee expects Mr Clark to cooperate fully with our investigation,” said the chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appeals court appears wary of Trump's suit to block documents from Jan. 6 committee

 

A federal appeals court on Tuesday appeared wary of former President Trump's lawsuit to block the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from obtaining voluminous tranches of documents from his White House.

 

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals grilled Trump's lawyers during a hearing that lasted more than three hours on Tuesday, a sign that the former president will likely lose the latest round in the case.

 

Judge Patricia Millett said that she believes "the burden is on the former president to come forward with some reason" with enough weight to back up his claims of executive privilege and counter President Biden's decision to waive that privilege.

 

"The former president's going to have to come back with some interest, something that's missed in that calculation, some supervening interest, and it won't be enough to go, 'See, I told you it was an executive privilege document.' You're going to have to come up with something more powerful that's going to outweigh the incumbent president's decision to waive executive privilege," said Millett, an appointee of former President Obama.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Never Got Another Classified Intelligence Briefing After Jan. 6

 

He skipped his classified intelligence briefings for the holidays. And then, after his Jan. 6 briefing didn’t happen, he never got another one, a new CIA book reveals.

 

After a holiday break where he didn’t receive a classified intelligence briefing, President Donald Trump was supposed to get one on Jan. 6, 2021—the day he incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. It didn’t happen. And then he didn’t get one for the rest of his presidency—and hasn’t received one since.

 

That unusual stretch where the sitting president didn’t receive a regular classified briefing is recounted in the latest version of a book published and regularly revised by the Central Intelligence Agency, which describes how spies update presidents on national security matters.

 

The situation in the waning days of Trump’s presidency was so uncommon that it actually caused concern among some administration officials that Trump was losing touch with reality, as he was getting unhinged advice on domestic issues from Justice Department attorneys and outside counsel that openly advocated rejecting election results.

 

"There was no certainty that he was getting objective, unbiased information in any other way,” one source familiar with the matter told The Daily Beast. “You couldn't trust that anybody around him was able to get that information to him in that period of time."

 

Unlike past presidents—who would read their daily intelligence report and occasionally get briefed by a CIA officer—Trump regularly refused to read the text, demanded “killer” pictures, and preferred to get updated in person by his daily briefer.

 

While past presidents took great interest in having the most up-to-date information on security challenges and foreign intelligence, the CIA book that was updated last month revealed that Trump spent two days a week receiving the latest sensitive information coming in from American spies all over the globe, in sessions running 45 minutes on average.

 

That came to a halt in late 2020, however, according to the CIA’s “Getting to Know the President” book, written by a revered former inspector general at the agency, John Helgerson.

 

Trump took a vacation break over the holidays when he traveled to Mar-a-Lago and told his briefer “he would see her later,” Helgerson wrote. The president then went two weeks without that pivotal one-on-one update, unlike his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, who was known to read the daily report even while vacationing in Hawaii.

 

Click on the link for the full article

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

'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley gets new lawyer, sets up likely appeal of Jan. 6 guilty plea

 

acob Chansley, the Arizona man who pleaded guilty to his role in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, switched attorneys Monday, laying the groundwork for a possible appeal of his plea and 41-month sentence.

 

Chansley’s decision to replace Albert Watkins with John Pierce comes less than two weeks after he expressed remorse at his sentencing for the Jan. 6 attack, telling a judge that if the attack happened again he would “try with all of my heart and soul to stop people.”

 

By switching attorneys now, however, Chansley appears to be preparing for an appeal that could argue he was poorly represented by his original counsel – one of the limited appeals left to him in his Nov. 17 plea agreement.

 

In Pierce, Chansley gets an attorney who claims to represent more than 20 other Jan. 6 defendants. For a time, he also represented Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen recently acquitted in the shooting deaths of two men and the wounding of another in the August 2020 protests in Kenosha, Wis.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, China said:

'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley gets new lawyer, sets up likely appeal of Jan. 6 guilty plea

 

acob Chansley, the Arizona man who pleaded guilty to his role in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, switched attorneys Monday, laying the groundwork for a possible appeal of his plea and 41-month sentence.

 

Chansley’s decision to replace Albert Watkins with John Pierce comes less than two weeks after he expressed remorse at his sentencing for the Jan. 6 attack, telling a judge that if the attack happened again he would “try with all of my heart and soul to stop people.”

 

By switching attorneys now, however, Chansley appears to be preparing for an appeal that could argue he was poorly represented by his original counsel – one of the limited appeals left to him in his Nov. 17 plea agreement.

 

In Pierce, Chansley gets an attorney who claims to represent more than 20 other Jan. 6 defendants. For a time, he also represented Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen recently acquitted in the shooting deaths of two men and the wounding of another in the August 2020 protests in Kenosha, Wis.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Who is paying for all of this?

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida Nurse Who Posted ‘Right Before Stormed in’ Picture to Instagram Pleads Not Guilty to Breaking Through Capitol Police Line

 

A Florida nurse alleged to have been at the front a crowd that pushed through a police line to breach the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 has pleaded not guilty.

 

Authorities say Moises Romero was among the first wave of individuals who forced themselves into the U.S. Capitol building after a Donald Trump rally to protest the certification of the 2020 presidential election. He pleaded not guilty on Monday before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee who has shown a tendency to be tough on Jan. 6 defendants.

 

According to the criminal complaint, Romero was part of a group outside an entryway which led into the Capitol building. Law enforcement officers, in an effort to guard the building, had placed a podium in the doorway. Romero was allegedly at the front of a group of protesters that started to “aggressively” push the podium against the officers.

The officers pushed back, trying to keep the mob from coming through the doors.

 

“During the push, which lasted for approximately 1 minute and 20 seconds, video footage depicted rioters punching law enforcement officers, throwing objects at law enforcement officers, and attempting to hit law enforcement officers with a flagpole,” the criminal complaint against Romero says. “As seen below, highlighted in red, ROMERO was near the front of the line of rioters, participating in the push against law enforcement officers[.]”

 

The complaint refers to the defendant as being among a group of “rioters” but does not charge him with rioting per se.

 

Romero is charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disruptive or disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.

 

The complaint included a series of photos that show what prosecutors say is Romero pushing into the building, using a wall as leverage.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Danny Rodriguez: "Am I mental? Am I? Am I just that stupid?... Did we all really just -- are we all that stupid that we thought we were going to go do this and save the country and it was all going to be fine after? We really thought that. That's so stupid, huh?"

 

Yes. Danny you're an easily manipulated treasonous ignoramus. 

 

Federal prison will make a good home for such a person.

  • Like 3
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

January 6 committee moves to hold former DOJ official in contempt but also gives him one last chance to cooperate

 

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol approved on Wednesday night the report to hold former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress for defying his subpoena by refusing to answer questions during a recent deposition and failing to hand over documents to the panel.

 

But the panel is also giving Clark another opportunity to appear, on Saturday, in light of a new letter he sent to the committee stating that he intends to claim Fifth Amendment protection.


A select committee aide tells CNN that due to Clark getting the new deposition date, the plan is to wait to hold a full House vote on the contempt report until at least after the weekend.


If Clark answers the committee's questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment, the panel will likely have to stop the process of holding him in criminal contempt. If Clark continues to stonewall the committee, and invoke the Fifth Amendment in ways the committee deems illegitimate, the panel will proceed with a floor vote as soon as next week.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I will say, unless it was an act, at least some of them are able to reflect on their actions and realize how they were manipulated, where as others are still holding onto the nonsense narratives.  This is why I think it's important to distinguish between the fools and the ones with horrible intentions.   Now the guy on video is going to have to face some type of punishment because he literally assaulted a capitol police officer, but hopefully he turns his life around. 

1 hour ago, ixcuincle said:

 

 

Cool Liz, but will you vote for Trump if he runs in 2024 against Biden or another Democrat?

 

Also, don't forget the part about how the big lie is being used to attempt to rig future elections in the GOP's favor, oh wait....that fact slipped by you somehow? Interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ixcuincle said:

 

 

It would be a beautiful thing to bring Donald Trump before the committee, swear him in, and question him for several hours under oath ...a situation where his pathological lying - his nation-damaging lying - would have dire personal consequences for him.

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 Now the guy on video is going to have to face some type of punishment because he literally assaulted a capitol police officer, but hopefully he turns his life around. 

 

He's 40 years old. I think he is who he is at this point. Can he turn it around? Sure anything is possible. Will he? I highly doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

He's 40 years old. I think he is who he is at this point. Can he turn it around? Sure anything is possible. Will he? I highly doubt it.

 

Oh is he? Well my bad then, the way he was talking he sounded younger. Dude looks good for 40, I'll give him that? LOL.

16 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

It would be a beautiful thing to bring Donald Trump before the committee, swear him in, and question him for several hours under oath ...a situation where his pathological lying - his nation-damaging lying - would have dire personal consequences for him.

 

Yeah no shiiiiiiiii......like, oh Trump wants to come debate committee members? YES PLEASE, come in, swear in under oath and have at it.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Yeah no shiiiiiiiii......like, oh Trump wants to come debate committee members? YES PLEASE, come in, swear in under oath and have at it.  

 

This is a fun viewing.  Watch him squirm, get flustered and frustrated, pout like a child, and find himself incapable of calling obvious lies lies on this video when he was deposed for the Trump University lawsuit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get your popcorn ready:

 

'In vivid color': Liz Cheney says weeks of Jan. 6 hearings are coming

 

Congress will hold weeks of public hearings to explain and highlight what happened on Jan. 6 and in the days leading up to the violent assault on democracy, and what then-President Donald Trump’s role in it was, the vice chair of the Jan. 6 House select committee said on Thursday.

 

“We are making rapid progress. We anticipate next year, we will be conducting multiple weeks of public hearings, setting out for the American people in vivid color exactly what happened, every minute of the day on Jan. 6, here at the Capitol and at the White House, and what led to that violent attack,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., at a hearing of the House Rules Committee.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

January 6 was opposite of 1776, judge tells rioter who carried revolutionary flag into US Capitol

 

A federal judge slammed one of the January 6 rioters for waving a 1776 flag while storming the US Capitol, saying his attempt to overturn a democratic election betrayed the values of the American Revolution.

 

Judge Amy Berman Jackson made the comments Thursday at a sentencing hearing for Andrew Wrigley, 51, from Philadelphia. He spent one minute inside the Capitol building during the attack, and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for unlawfully protesting on restricted grounds.


Jackson sentenced Wrigley to 1.5 years of probation and a $2,000 fine. The 1776 flag that Wrigley brought into the Capitol was repeatedly brought up during his sentencing hearing Thursday in DC District Court.

 

"This isn't a good analogy," Jackson said. "... In 1776, the people who went on to form a democracy didn't do that at the urging of a single head of state. ..."


"The point of 1776 was to let the people to decide who would rule them," Jackson continued, contrasting it with January 6, where "the point was to substitute the will of the people with the will of the mob... It was not under the banner of 1776."


"You were a participant, albeit a minor one, in an effort to subvert and overturn the democratic process," Jackson said. "That day didn't just cost you a lot, it cost our country a lot."

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 2
  • 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...