No worries.
Not common knowledge, but stumbles has a 24/7 tail and they carry the tranquilizer gun.

 

Anyone else catch kind of a drift here?

• 
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  

Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro reveals he's been served a federal grand jury subpoena over the Jan. 6 riot, but says only the former president can authorize him to testify
Matthew Loh
Tue, May 31, 2022, 2:04 AM·3 min read


In this article:

• 
  

• 
  

• 
  Donald Trump
  45th President of the United States

Peter Navarro helped work on trade policies and the country's pandemic response during his time in the Trump administration.Alex Wong/Getty Images

• In a lawsuit, Peter Navarro revealed he'd been served a grand jury subpoena over the Jan. 6 riot.
  
  
• The former Trump aide had already been subpoenaed once by the panel investigating the Capitol riot.
  
  
• Navarro wrote that he would testify only if former President Donald Trump authorized him to.
  

Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro has revealed that the FBI served him a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury on Thursday about the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Navarro disclosed the latest subpoena against him in the draft of a lawsuit that details complaints against the January 6 House Committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Matt Graves.

In the 88-page draft, Navarro said the grand jury subpoena instructed him to produce documents in his possession related to the Capitol attack and records of "any communications" with former President Donald Trump. The lawsuit seeks to block the grand jury subpoena.

The subpoena was served to his house by two FBI agents who "banged loudly" on his door, Navarro's lawsuit said.

The draft lawsuit also said that the subpoena is connected to another served to him by the January 6 House Committee in February. Navarro has refused to cooperate with the January 6 committee, citing "executive privilege," even after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Navarro's lawsuit said that the committee subpoena against him was "unlawful and unenforceable," and that the grand jury subpoena was the "fruit of the poisonous tree."

According to Politico, Navarro plans to file his lawsuit on Tuesday morning.

"Each of the issues raised in the lawsuit — which took several months to prepare — are ripe for the judiciary to address; I find it my duty to raise these issues now rather than submit to the coercion of a kangaroo committee," Navarro told USA Today.

Navarro said he would represent himself in the case, citing his doctorate degree in regulatory economics and his experience publishing articles in law journals, the outlet reported.

When asked by The New York Times if he would comply with the grand jury subpoena and testify on Thursday, he responded with: "TBD."

The draft of Navarro's lawsuit said that he would testify only if he were authorized to do so by Trump. It also asked that Graves — the US Attorney and one of the people named in Navarro's suit — negotiate directly with Trump, calling it the less "burdensome" alternative.

Navarro's lawsuit also denounced President Joe Biden decision to waive Trump's executive privilege over records related to the Capitol riot.

The former Trump aide had originally been subpoenaed by the January 6 committee for his testimony on a strategy called the "Green Bay Sweep," which was supposed to delay the certification of Biden's 2020 election victory so the election could be investigated for fraud and irregularities.

Navarro was one of those who backed the plan, according to his book "In Trump Time," according to USA Today. In the book, he called the idea the "last, best chance to snatch a stolen election from the Democrats' jaws of deceit," the outlet reported.

During his time serving under Trump, Navarro helped work on trade policies and the country's pandemic response.

A grand jury subpoena sent to Navarro would be the first such court order related to the January 6 attack issued to Trump's circle, according to The Times. Ali Alexander, a key organizer in the "Stop the Steal" movement, was also served a federal grand jury subpoena in April and said he would cooperate with the probe.

At least 846 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol riot so far.

Read the original article on Business Insider

• Peter Navarro
  American economist and author

• https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-trump-adviser-peter-navarro-080434038.html

 

*checks the schedule.
Yep.
Covered.

 

Mark Meadows' texts 'paint a very clear portrait' of Team Trump's plot to overthrow the election: Maggie Haberman

Matthew Chapman
June 02, 2022



Photo via Nicholas Kamm/AFP


On CNN Thursday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman analyzed the claims made by former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA), an adviser to the January 6 committee, in an exclusive CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, about former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows's messages about the plot to over turn the 2020 presidential election.

"Denver Riggleman in there saying that basically the text messages made him sick, they are a roadmap, a roadmap to what?" asked anchor John Berman.

"Look, they clearly are a roadmap," said Haberman. "I actually have had this conversation with people both working on the investigation and my own colleagues that if this committee did not have Meadows' texts, I'm not sure what they would have. They paint a very clear portrait of what was being discussed, who he was talking to. Where it all goes from here, we have seen some of the text messages, they are stunning. I assume there are others we haven't seen that we will learn about, but what it adds up to it after the public hearings, where this is all going, I think, is a big open question. There is no question that the events of January 6th were horrifying to watch. What happens? Do people get held accountable? We know a lot of people involved in the riot have been charged. Does anyone else get charged beyond contempt of Congress? We'll see."

"What do you think the stakes are for next week?" asked Berman. "In some ways we have known the hearings are coming, but I also think they're sneaking up on us. They're a big deal."

READ MORE: High school commencement speaker triggers outrage by pushing 'Biblical principles' in rant about LGBT marriage

"One set of stakes is for the country," said Haberman. "That set of stakes is about the fact that what took place after November 3rd in the leadup to January 6th, there were aspects of it we have seen before in previous elections, mostly court challenges. And there were decidedly aspects we have not, conversations about at least in modern history, conversations about the Insurrection Act, conversations about seizing the apparatus of the elections. That is important, I think, to remind the public what we were talking about and how close things came to the brink. In terms of what it more immediately means in terms of explaining the investigation, I do think the committee has set a pretty high expectation for what might come out of these hearings. We have heard repeatedly, I think, that the former congressman said it, the current members of the House have said it, who are work on this investigation, there is going to be evidence that will blow the roof off the Capitol essentially. They have to make good on that."

Watch below or at this link.



https://www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-text-messages-2657443209/

 

Idiots!



Thinskin

 

Just as you hack fuck leftists attempt to keep this non issue alive, because this is all you have, the people see it as it is a nothing to be concerned about...the nation is not behind this, just as the Nation is not behind the big government knows best mantra...these folks are nothing more than political prisoners, lead by power hungry Princess Pelosi, as the mid terms approach...this political sham rings hollow with the people today.

 

Well, but it does deflect from what continues to happen in despicable controlled country .........
NW Portland business hires armed security amid rising crime (koin.com)
In Stunning Decision, DOJ Dismisses 31 of 90 Portland Riot Cases, Some Violent Youtube (linkingin.co)
Gigi Sohn Praised a Group that Called Policing 'A Violent Institution' (breitbart.com)
New Washington law restricting police pursuits causing concern among law enforcement | king5.com
Chesa Boudin, San Francisco prosecutor raised in Hyde Park, facing recall vote Tuesday - Chicago Sun-Times (suntimes.com)

 

Trump is 'the first seditious president in our history': Woodward and Bernstein

Tom Boggioni
June 05, 2022



Donald Trump (Photo by Mandel Ngan for AFP)


In a comprehensive piece for the Washington Post, legendary Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein used their experiences covering the Senate hearings 50 years ago that eventually sent Richard Nixon packing, to the impending congressional hearings by a House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection that will begin this Thursday, and claimed that what Nixon did pales in comparison to Donald Trump's attack on democracy.

The two journalists whose steadfastness in reporting on the Watergate break-in led to Nixon's resignation and fall into disgrace, wrote for the Post that they have no doubt that the twice-impeached Trump is guilty of sedition by virtue of his conspiring with others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Put more bluntly, they wrote that Trump's post-election actions made him the "first seditious president in our history."

According to their analysis, on Jan 6th, "driven by Trump’s rhetoric and his obvious approval, a mob descended on the Capitol and, in a stunning act of collective violence, broke through doors and windows and ransacked the House chamber, where the electoral votes were to be counted. The mob then went in search of Pence — all to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. Trump did nothing to restrain them."

RELATED: George Conway: Donald Trump engaged in a 'multi-faceted criminal conspiracy'

As the journalist noted, unlike Nixon's "dirty tricks," Trump, "...accomplished his subversion largely in public. He pursued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election process from campaign rally podiums, the White House and his popular Twitter feed. Nonetheless, he lost 61 of his court challenges, even from judges he had appointed," before adding, "After Election Day, Trump began another, more deadly assault on the electoral process."

After detailing Trump's efforts up to and after the Jan 6th riot, Woodward and Bernstein pointed out some similarities between the recently ousted president and Nixon who realized he had lost support in Congress making staying in office untenable.

"Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the U.S. Constitution, laws and fragile democratic traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were 'enemies,' and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents," they wrote. "Trump’s claims have always been presented with unwavering, emotional consistency, revealing little or no self-doubt. As the 2024 election approaches, Trump seems on the verge of once again seeking the presidency."

Having written that, they added, "Both Nixon and Trump have been willing prisoners of their compulsions to dominate, and to gain and hold political power through virtually any means. In leaning so heavily on these dark impulses, they defined two of the most dangerous and troubling eras in American history, before warning, "As Washington warned in his Farewell Address more than 225 years ago, unprincipled leaders could create 'permanent despotism,' 'the ruins of public liberty,' and 'riot and insurrection.'"

You can read the highly comprehensive piece here.



https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-sedition-2657460146/

 

The net just keeps getting wider. And the DOJ is coming down hard.

Proud Boys Leader Hit With Seditious Conspiracy Charge for Jan. 6 Riot

The Department of Justice on Monday charged Enrique Tarrio with seditious conspiracy in a new superseding indictment alleging the Proud Boys national chairman helped organize a wide-ranging plot to block the certification of then-President-Elect Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. Tarrio, 38, was not present at the Capitol when a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the building, but planned and choreographed the far-right gang’s movements that day from Baltimore, according to prosecutors. Four other Proud Boys were also hit Monday with seditious conspiracy charges, including Ethan Nordean, 31; Joseph Biggs, 38; Dominic Pezzola of New York, 44; and Zachary Rehl, 37. They all now face a total of nine charges each, except for Pezzola, who faces an additional robbery charge.

Read it at Department of Justice


https://www.thedailybeast.com/proud...iracy-charge-over-jan-6-capitol-riot?ref=home

 

'There was a plan': NYT's Haberman says goal of Jan. 6 hearings will be 'proving a conspiracy'

Matthew Chapman
June 07, 2022



Trump supporters rioting at the US Capitol. (Shutterstock.com)


On CNN Tuesday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman broke down the likely strategy that will be employed by members of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol during the upcoming public hearings.

Specifically, Haberman said, they will be focusing on the "conspiracy" behind the plan set up by allies of former President Donald Trump.

"The idea here is to show that this wasn't just a spontaneous combustion, but a plan all along by people who plotted prior to January 6th to do whatever it took to make sure that the electors were not certified on that day," said reporter Abby Phillip.

"What do you think about that?" anchor John Berman asked Haberman. "Why do you think the committee may be leading with this area?"

READ MORE: Some Trump officials knew election scheme was 'improper if not illegal' -- and new emails prove it: CNN legal analyst

"I think Abby is right," said Haberman. "We heard Liz Cheney say there was a conspiracy. I think the House members who were involved in the select committee believe they're going to be able to show that, that starts with showing the people who rushed the Capitol, who mobbed the building, some of whom were talking about hanging the vice president, that there was a plan, that this wasn't just a spontaneous uprising of people who happened to be of like minds. That has been missing in a lot of investigations of Donald Trump over several years, is proving a conspiracy, and I think that that is a key goal in what you're seeing here."

Republicans are reportedly already plotting how to counterprogram the hearings with their own narrative, with Trump himself considering a public appearance to pre-empt the proceedings.

Watch below or at this link.



https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-committee-2657466818/

 

The goal of Nancy Antoinette's star chamber proceeding is the demonization of Trump.
Ideally with him doing a perp walk down the white house steps.
Yes, Shooter could imagine they'd drag his ass back to the Whitehouse just for the photo op.

Nancy's problem is that so far as anyone can tell, none of her star chamber toadies has even bothered with a call to the FBI/DOJ to see what they came up with in their 17 month investigation. Over 750 indictments, 174 guilty pleas or verdicts, and 75 sentences. But hey, why bother those fine folks, they won't have what the star chamber minions want, will they?

 

Judge to Eastman: Give Jan. 6 committee more emails, including the one presenting evidence of a likely crime

Sarah D. Wire
Tue, June 7, 2022 at 10:49 PM



John Eastman outside of CU Boulder in April 2021. (Andy Cross / Denver Post via Getty Images)

Conservative lawyer John Eastman must give 159 more emails to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including one a judge says is evidence of a likely crime related to the effort to overturn the election.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who is based in Santa Ana, ordered Eastman late Tuesday to provide the emails to the committee by Wednesday, the day before it begins a series of hearings laying out the results of its more than 10-month investigation.

Included is a Dec. 22, 2020, email that pertains to a potential crime and must be disclosed, Carter wrote in his order Tuesday. The committee has argued in court that attorney-client privilege between Eastman and Trump would not apply to evidence demonstrating crime or fraud.


The email considers whether to ask the courts to rule on the proper interpretation of the Electoral Count Act and potentially risk a court finding that the act binds Vice President Mike Pence from rejecting electors.

“Because the attorney concluded that a negative court ruling would ‘tank the January 6 strategy,’ he encouraged the legal team to avoid the courts. This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan,” Carter wrote in his order. “The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in court — instead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a democratic election.”

Eastman's lawyer did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

After refusing to provide documents to the committee, and pleading the 5th Amendment at his deposition, Eastman sued to block release of emails housed on the server of his former employer, Chapman University in Orange. In a March order to turn over 111 other emails, Carter said that Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress when he tried to subvert the 2020 election.

Eastman is the architect of the legal theory at the root of Trump’s attempt to overturn the presidential election, that Pence could declare the results in several states in dispute and those electoral votes would go uncounted. Doing so would have turned Trump from the loser to the winner.

In his Tuesday order, Carter took a close look at five emails that might be exempt from attorney client privilege because they demonstrate crime or fraud, but found that only one did.

The other emails Eastman must release include discussions about Eastman's proposal for Pence to reject or delay counting electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, and actions alternate state electors should take in the days leading up to Jan. 6. Others involve conversations with state lawmakers and members of Congress.

Ten emails relate to meetings that Eastman joined in early December with a group led by a "high-profile" leader, strategizing ways to overturn the 2020 election.

“Five documents include the agenda for a meeting on December 9, 2020,” Carter wrote. “The agenda included a section entitled 'GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results,' during which a sitting Member of Congress discussed a '[p]lan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives.'”

Carter also ordered Eastman to release three communications directly from Trump, which Carter said were not protected by his attorney-client relationship with the president. One was a handwritten note from Trump about the size of his rallies, the other two were relayed by Trump’s executive assistant and sought advice for reframing Trump’s public statements about a plan to send alternate slates of electors to Congress — an element of the effort to overturn the election.

Carter ruled that more than 400 emails related to representing Trump or his campaign, and sent by or for members of the White House and campaign staff, attorneys of record in court cases (including Eastman), and those attorneys’ staff are protected work products and don't have to be released. Carter wrote that none are “pivotal” to the select committee’s investigation.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-eastman-jan-6-committee-044935666.html

 

On Thursday America will be treated to the airing of the "House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol" extravaganza, probably featuring the very solemn and tearful bloviating of committee members alleging all the secret and unreleasable proof of the trump/RNC conspiracy to overthrow the government and enthrone Trump as dictator for life (Shooter poking fun at the resident American haters rhetoric).

And beginning Thursday night we'll see multiple new threads and posts on the forum about what the committee did or did not reveal during it's prime time extravaganza.

Full disclosure; Shooter has purchased stock in popcorn manufacturers and expects to make a killing over the next week.

Shooter does not expect much more out of all this. Just more bloviating.

 

Peter Navarro lied about being denied call to lawyer — he wanted to call a TV producer: Feds

Bob Brigham
June 09, 2022



Peter Navarro (Photo by Saul Loeb for AFP)


Federal prosecutors allege that former Trump White House official Peter Navarro lied about the details of his arrest when he went on Fox News to complain about his legal jeopardy.

Navarro was arrest on Friday for contempt of Congress after refusing to abide by a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In his first cable news interview after his arrest, Navarro told Fox News personality Tucker Carlson he was "denied an attorney."

Navarro repeated the claim before Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

IN OTHER NEWS: GOP candidate's neighbor elated after watching him get hauled away by the FBI: 'I've been waiting for this'

Those were false claims, according to a transcript of his interview with FBI agents released Thursday.

FBI Special Agent Walter Giardina said Navarro asked if he got to make a phone call.

"Do you have an attorney you'd like to call?" Giardina asked, per the transcript of the interview.

"I'm supposed to be on live television tonight," Navarro replied. "I'd like to call the producer and tell him I'm not going to be there."

Navarro was scheduled to appear on Mike Huckabee's show on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

READ MORE: Newly released documents cast doubt on GOP senator's Jan. 6 denials

"Can I have my phone?" Navarro asked.

Special Agent Giardina informed him he could not have his phone until after being arraigned, but told him he could speak with an attorney, , according to prosecutors.

The next line of the transcript says Navarro referred to the FBI agents as "kind Nazis."

He reportedly asked, "how you could live with yourselves?

https://www.rawstory.com/peter-navarro-lied-fbi/

 

‘Coordinated and Planned’: Proud Boys Ran Recon at Capitol Hours Before Jan. 6 Attack

Documentarian Nick Quested revealed on Thursday that the militia group cased the Capitol on the morning of the insurrection




Hundreds of Proud Boys assembled near the Capitol on the mid-morning of Jan. 6 — well before Donald Trump’s speech at the ellipse — and appeared to perform reconnaissance for the attack on the Capitol that they would spearhead later that afternoon.

That was the testimony of British documentary filmmaker Nick Quested, live before the Jan. 6 Committee on Thursday night. Quested was embedded with Proud Boys on that day, and his raw footage of violence during the insurrection was featured at length by the committee.

In his testimony, Quested recalled how hundreds of Proud Boys had ditched the Ellipse and made straight for the Capitol complex at about 10:30 on Jan. 6. They watched as the cops set up bike-rack style barricades, and donned riot gear on the west side perimeter of the Capitol, before circling to the other side of the halls of Congress to see the East side. The Proud Boys finished their recon mission so early that they had time to go out for tacos.






g



They would later return to the Peace Circle on the West side, positioned to receive the angry mobs sent their way after his speech. Committee chair Bennie Thompson, remarking on Quested’s testimony, said: “The central question is whether the attack on the Capitol was coordinated and planned. What you witnessed is what a coordinated and planned effort would look like.”






Seditious Questions
The January 6th Committee’s prime time hearing highlighted the role of violent right wing groups now each facing seditious conspiracy charges for their roles seeking to block the peaceful transfer of power of power on Jan. 6: the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

The committee’s presentation did not definitively answer a pressing question, however: Were those alleged conspiracies, in fact one, and the same?

But the committee presentation did indicate crossover between the two groups. It highlighted Quested’s footage of the two group’s leaders together in a Washington D.C. parking garage on Jan 5. And it presented a video clip of then Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio saying of the Oath Keepers: “There’s mutual respect there; we’re fighting the sajime fight and I think that’s what’s important.”

Shared Values, Different Tactics
The Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys share extreme right-wing politics and a love of Donald Trump, but they’re culturally distinct.

The Oath Keepers are part of the militia movement and recruit heavily from among veterans of the military and law enforcement. They imagine themselves as keepers of the constitutional order, but they are steeped in conspiratorial thinking about a tyrannical forces within the U.S. government.

The Proud Boys are a “Western Chauvinist” fraternity that rails against “The Left” for devaluing the legacy of white men. They are often denounced as white supremacists. In contrast to the regimentation of a militia, the Proud Boys are agents of chaos, notorious for street brawling, in particular with anti-fascist demonstrators. (Asked to denounce the group during a 2020 presidential debate, Trump notoriously told them instead to “Stand back and stand by.”)

The sedition charges faced by both groups are exceedingly rare, and underscore the gravity of the events of Jan. 6. The Jan. 6 committee’s presentation made the case that both groups began preparing in earnest for their trips to Washington after a Donald Trump tweet calling his backers to come protest on Jan. 6, exhorting: “Be there. Will be wild!”






The Oath Keepers
The Oath Keepers were hit with the seditious conspiracy charge first, in January of this year. Federal court documents allege that Stewart Rhodes, the milita’s founder, plotted with lieutenants starting in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, predicting that a “civil war” was imminent.

In advance of Jan. 6, Rhodes and his loyalists allegedly plotted to travel to the Washington, D.C., area, heavily armed, including with thousands of dollars of weapons that Rhodes purchased on the drive east from Texas.

The militia allegedly kept a large cache of weapons across the river in Northern Virginia, with a “Quick Reaction Force” that Rhodes expected to be able to mobilize when, he hoped, Trump invoked the Insurrection Act and called up militias like the Oath Keepers into what Rhodes forecast would be a “bloody” battle against the president’s enemies.

On the day of Jan. 6., as the insurrection began to unfold, Rhodes was delighted by the uprising of “patriots” who were “taking it into their own hands,” according to court documents. Rhodes and his lieutenants allegedly breached the restricted area of the Capitol grounds. While Rhodes stayed outside the building, other top Oath Keepers entered the Capitol in military “stack” formation, allegedly determined to disrupt the counting of the votes of the Electoral College. When Rhodes learned that members of Congress were endangered inside, he allegedly replied, “Fuck ‘em!”

Three Oath Keepers have already pleaded guilty to the seditious conspiracy charge. The latest member to admit to the plot alleged that Rhodes and others regrouped at the Phoenix Hotel on the evening of Jan. 6, and that Rhodes placed a call to a member of Trump’s inner circle, asking to be connected to the president and demanding, even at that late hour, that Trump invoke the Insurrection Act.

The Proud Boys
The seditious conspiracy charge against the Proud Boys was not unveiled until this week, targeting Tarrio who led the organization during the events of Jan. 6, and several deputies.

Following the election, Tarrio allegedly recruited and led a select cadre of Proud Boys known as the Ministry of Self Defense. Starting in late December, Tarrio is alleged to have discussed a document, called “1776 returns,” that called for occupying buildings in the Capitol complex, to “show our politicians We the People are in charge.”






The hardcore MOSD members, who took their marching orders from Tarrio, are alleged to have plotted to dress “incognito” on Jan 6. instead of wearing the usual Proud Boy markings. But Tarrio was not on the ground on the day of the insurrection — he’d been arrested days earlier for burning a Black Lives Matter flag at a church and had been ordered to leave Washington D.C. as part of the conditions of his release.

Yet Tarrio allegedly cheered on his liutenanants from Baltimore, reveling in their actions to storm the Capitol. Proud Boys were at the vanguard of the insurrectionists, with one member allegedly stripping a riot shield from a Capitol Police officer and using it to smash open a window that let the first invaders inside the building. Tarrio allegedly sent celebratory messages including, “Make no mistake… We did this,” and, “Do it again.”

Evidence of Collaboration?
Did the streams of these two conspiracies cross?

Neither the Jan. 6 Committee nor the Justice Department has said so explicitly.

But in making its case against the Proud Boys in preliminary court proceedings, federal prosecutors have repeatedly pointed to the suspicious meeting in the garage of the Phoenix Hotel on Jan. 5, just before Tarrio left town, where the Proud Boy leader briefly met Rhodes and the Oath Keepers’ then-general counsel Kellye SoRelle.

This meeting — caught on tape by Quested’s team — certainly points to coordination. But Tarrio has insisted he was merely seeking legal advice from SoRelle on a gun charge he faced connected to his recent arrest. Federal documents alleged that a member of the meeting could be overheard talking about the Capitol. Tarrio’s lawyer has alleged in a court hearing that that person was Rhodes.

In a Wednesday court filing, Tarrio legal team bashed the new federal case against him as based on public relations rather than new evidence. The memo accused the government of levying “trumped up” sedition charges in a move “suspiciously” timed to “coincide with the January 6th Select Committee Hearings.”

Tarrio has pleaded not guilty to the seditious conspiracy charge. Tarrio’s lawyer suggested the Proud Boy was the victim of a conspiracy, himself, that had been “orchestrated at the highest levels of government.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/proud-boys-recon-capitol-jan-6-hearing-1365850/

 

'This is treason squared': Legal expert aghast Trump tried to keep security forces away from the Capitol

Matthew Chapman
June 10, 2022



Capitol rioters (Photo by Joseph Prezioso for AFP)


On Friday's edition of MSNBC's "The ReidOut," former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner broke down the significance of new reporting from the January 6 Committee's first day of hearings.

Specifically, Kirschner focused on details of how former President Donald Trump refused to summon a security response to the attack on the Capitol.

"This was a plan, a scheme," said Kirschner. "This was not a riot or a crowd that got overenthusiastic and sort of spun out of control, and I can't wait to see more information in the coming public hearings about the meeting in the Oval Office between Trump, Flynn, Giuliani and Powell. I'm quite sure the J6 committee has some information about that. They are going to present. Last night we sort of got the impression that there were no adults in the room at the time, no lovers of democracy in there to try to keep that — that conspiracy, you know, contained, and we heard, that you know, some people did rush in and when we heard these folks were meeting in the Oval of course, but about an hour after that meeting we got the tweet. The plan had been hatched, and Donald Trump was implementing it. Come to D.C. on January 6th. It will be wild."

"The other word ... that you heard yesterday was war," said Kirschner. "Why does that become important? Well, where is that word prominently featured in the big ugly blue book of federal laws, the United States Code, the crime of treason, and every time I heard war, my mind went back to treason which is a very short and simple statute. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, like the president, levies war against the United States, is guilty of treason."

The real indication of a crime, Kirschner argued, is Trump's lack of response to what was going on.

"I think what we learned a little bit more about last night was not only did he refuse to call off the attack, he refused to authorize the deployment of any forces to go to the Capitol to fend off the attack, to protect the people in the U.S. Capitol that he set his angry mob on," said Kirschner. "It took an order from Mike Pence, who frankly probably didn't have the authority at that moment, but General Milley said he was insistent. We have to get forces to the Capitol. Mike Pence is no hero. He was protecting his own skin because he was in the Capitol. But you know what, this begins to feel not — not just like treason but like treason squared."

Watch below.



https://www.rawstory.com/this-is-tr...o-keep-security-forces-away-from-the-capitol/

 

The first J6 committee was so powerful and evidence filled the conservative rats are starting to jump off the sinking Traitor Trump ship. But notice Murdoch is trying to be smart about this. He's now willing to throw Trump under the bus hoping to distract and deflect from the much more devastating and destructive outcome that it wasn't just Trump. It was actually nearly the entire Republican party involved in trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election stage a deadly insurrection and attempted coup to keep Trump in power. So Murdoch is now willing to turn against Trump to try and save the treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican party.

‘Trump Bears Responsibility For The Mayhem’: Murdoch Papers Hit Trump with Pair of Brutal Op-eds on January 6th Hearing
By Zachary LeemanJun 11th, 2022, 12:24 pm
229 comments



Photo by Chet Strange/Getty Images

The editorial boards of two papers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation published scathing op-eds in light of Thursday’s bombshell congressional hearing on the January 6 Capitol riot.

The op-eds dropped not only after the subcommittee investigating the riot presented their initial findings, but also after Murdoch’s Fox News became an outlier in news media, refusing to air the primetime hearing. Network hosts like Tucker Carlson remain supportive of former President Donald Trump and have dismissed the hearing and mostly Democrat-comprised committee.


In the Wall Street Journal, the editorial board openly said Trump “bears responsibility” for what happened on January 6.

The President spread falsehoods about the election. He invited supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, tweeting on Dec. 19 that it ‘will be wild!’ He riled up the crowd and urged it to march on the Capitol. After violence began, he dawdled instead of sending help. Mr. Trump bears responsibility for the mayhem. But inspiring followers to march is not the same as leading a criminal conspiracy.

The paper was also critical of Trump’s defiant responses to the hearing. The former president has put out numerous messages on his Truth Social app, blasting those involved and even taking a swipe at his own daughter Ivanka, who said she agreed with Bill Barr’s conclusion that there is no evidence of the massive fraud Trump has been referring to for years now.

“Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on Jan. 6, and he is still doing it,” the op-ed reads.

A similar op-ed from the New York Post accused the hearing of being a blatant political distraction from the numerous crises plaguing President Joe Biden’s administration — calling it a “Democratic campaign ad” — but also warned Republicans that it’s time to move on from the obsession of Trump on a “stolen” election and waging verbal war with anyone who disagrees with him.

Trump has become a prisoner of his own ego. He can’t admit his tweeting and narcissism turned off millions. He won’t stop insisting that 2020 was ‘stolen’ even though he’s offered no proof that it’s true. Respected officials like former Attorney General Bill Barr call his rants ‘nonsense.’ This isn’t just about Liz Cheney. Mitch McConnell, Betsy DeVos, Mark Meadows — they all knew Trump was delusional. His own daughter and son-in-law testified it was bull.

https://www.mediaite.com/print/murd...utal-op-eds-on-bombshell-january-6th-hearing/

 

Still scared of one man, the establishment hack fucks are.

 

Pence-world’s final takedown of Trump’s Jan. 6 bid to remain in power revealed in his lawyer's memo

Top adviser told the then-vice president that the courts would likely not support him if he gave in to Trump's pressure to delay certifying electoral votes.



A video of former Vice President Mike Pence speaking is shown. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

By Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney

06/11/2022 04:41 PM EDT

A day before a mob of Donald Trump supporters smashed their way into the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of presidential power, then-Vice President Mike Pence’s top lawyer dashed off a fateful memo.

In the three-page document, attorney Greg Jacob concluded that if Pence were to embrace Trump’s demand that he single-handedly block or delay the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, he would be breaking multiple provisions of the Electoral Count Act, the law that has governed the transfer of power since 1887.




Such a move, Jacob concluded, would assuredly fail in court. Or worse, he said, the courts would refuse to get involved and leave America in an unprecedented political crisis.

In that case, he said in the memo obtained by POLITICO and published for the first time, “the Vice President would likely find himself in an isolated standoff against both houses of Congress … with no neutral arbiter available to break the impasse.”

Jacob is scheduled to testify publicly Thursday to the Jan. 6 select committee about Pence’s decision to resist Trump’s pressure campaign. The panel declined to comment on Jacob’s memo.

The memo informed Pence’s ultimate decision to rebuff pressure from Trump to reverse the outcome of the election. Pence announced his decision the next day, when he traveled to the Capitol to preside over the Jan. 6 meeting of the House and Senate. His decision, in a letter that closely tracked Jacob’s memo, inflamed a crowd of thousands of Trump supporters that the president had called to Washington to protest his defeat.

Within an hour of Pence’s announcement, hundreds of members of that mob would bludgeon their way past police lines and into the Capitol itself, sending the vice president and members of Congress fleeing for safety. Some members of that mob chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.”




The Jan. 6 select committee has had Jacob’s memo for months. It’s an important element of the panel’s view that Trump criminally conspired to overturn the election, when his legal challenges had all failed. Pence’s team firmly believed that embracing Trump’s push to block Joe Biden’s presidency would require numerous violations of the Electoral Count Act, a position they had relayed to both Trump and attorney John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who developed Trump’s fringe legal strategy to remain in power.

Jacob’s memo, titled “Analysis of Professor Eastman’s Proposals,” is dated Jan. 5. But Jacob told the select committee in February he drafted most of it a day earlier in response to an intense first-time meeting with Eastman.

A federal judge has agreed that Eastman’s strategy likely veered into criminal territory. U.S. District Court Judge David Carter ruled in March that Eastman’s legal theories were outcome-driven and unsupported — he dubbed it “a coup in search of a legal theory” — and that effort to obstruct the counting of electoral votes likely amounted to a criminal conspiracy with Trump.

In his memo, Jacob said Eastman acknowledged his proposal would require Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act in four ways. They included rejecting the law’s requirements that 1) Pence count all electoral votes from states in alphabetical order, resolving any disputes before moving on to the next state; 2) Pence call for any objections from lawmakers after introducing each state’s slate of electors; 3) lawmakers be permitted to consider competing slates of electors; and 4) the session of Congress cannot be adjourned once it starts and must conclude within five days.

“Eastman’s proposal, by contrast, contemplate an extended recess of the joint session to allow State legislatures to investigate the election and to vote on which slate of electors to certify,” Jacob noted.

Eastman spent the final weeks before Jan. 6 agitating for Republican-controlled legislatures in a handful of states won by Biden to appoint their own competing slate of electors. In that scenario, Eastman posited, Pence would be required to consider these “dueling” slates. But no state legislature agreed to follow Eastman’s advice. Instead, pro-Trump activists met and sent their own uncertified slates of electors to Congress, but without the blessing or backing of any legislature or governor.



Without that certification, Eastman began pushing Pence to adopt a different tactic: delay. He urged Pence to declare the results in a handful of states to be in dispute and to recess the joint session of Congress until those legislatures could resolve the controversy.

Jacob’s Jan. 5 memo could be seen as the bookend of his month-long legal cramming session on the Electoral Count Act. Jacob drafted an opening memo for Pence on Dec. 8, previously obtained and published by POLITICO, that informed Pence’s initial thinking on the question but drew no firm conclusions. By Jan. 5, Pence’s team had clearly decided there was no viable path to pursue Trump and Eastman’s strategy.

Notably, Jacob indicated that if any state legislatures had, in fact, certified a pro-Trump slate, the vice president might have taken a different path.

“A reasonable argument might further be made that when resolving a dispute between competing electoral slates, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution places a firm thumb on the scale on the side of the State legislature,” Jacob wrote.

“Here, however, no State legislature has appointed or certified any alternate slate of electors,” Jacob noted, “and Professor Eastman acknowledges that most Republican legislative majorities in the States have signaled they have no intention of doing so.”

In justifying his conclusions, Jacob cited former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley, who helped resolve the disputed election of 1876. In breaking a political logjam — the very dispute that led to the passage of the Electoral Count Act – Bradley determined that the vice president had no role deciding the validity of electoral votes. Federal courts in Washington D.C., Jacob added, were very likely to agree with that.

Instead, Eastman had been banking on something that could create even more chaos: the courts refusing to step in. Under the so-called “political question doctrine,” courts often avoid weighing in on murky disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government. But Jacob said even that scenario would not work out in Trump and Eastman’s favor.




“t is unclear that any favorable political solution could follow,” he wrote.

Jacob’s judgment also influenced two changes Pence made to the vice presidential script when he presided over the Jan. 6 session — before and after the mob ransacked the Capitol. In one, Pence made clear that he was only introducing presidential electors that had been certified by a state government — and refusing to introduce the uncertified slates sent by pro-Trump activists. In the other, he explicitly asked whether there were objections by House and Senate lawmakers after each state’s electors were introduced.

On Jan. 6, just as rioters were bearing down on the Capitol, Eastman made a last-ditch plea with Jacob to convince Pence to reconsider. In an email, he showed Pence a letter suggesting that Republican legislators in Pennsylvania appeared likely to reconvene and appoint pro-Trump electors if they had more time. When Jacob said any effort to send the matter back to the states would still violate the law, Eastman called his response “small minded.”

“You’re sticking with minor procedural statutes while the Constitution is being shredded,” Eastman wrote.

“I respect your heart here,” replied Jacob. “I share your concerns about what Democrats will do once in power. I want election integrity fixed. But I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up.”

“And thanks to your bullshit,” he continued, “we are now under siege.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/11/pence-trump-jan-6-lawyer-memo-00038996