January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Peter Brown]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

[Seacoaster(1)]

“Pro-normal.” Seriously.

Yes, pro-normal: among many other examples, not wanting to discuss age-inappropriate topics with young children. That would be normal, to vehemently reject any adult discussing age-inappropriate topics with young kids. I can list dozens of examples of being ‘normal’.

I’ll go back to ignoring you. But let me say I am laughing at you. You are a complete phony. You really have no idea about the real world, and it shows in everything you say.

[jhu72]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

... if you have gay friends, they are beyond stupid to have you as a friend. You are either incredibly naive or stupid beyond belief. Your real friends, your political friends want to do away your "gay friends", push them back into the closet, dissolve their marriages, or worse.

[Peter Brown]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

... if you have gay friends, they are beyond stupid to have you as a friend. You are either incredibly naive or stupid beyond belief. Your real friends, your political friends want to do away your "gay friends", push them back into the closet, dissolve their marriages, or worse.

I’m actually, sincerely curious if you think ‘conservatives want to do away with gays’? If so, that might help explain your posts to anyone reading them, no different than someone being unwilling to define ‘woman’ (except today because of a SCOTUS draft opinion; today, we get to define ‘woman’, tomorrow back to FLP-ville!, we refuse to define ‘woman’!!).

[jhu72]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

... if you have gay friends, they are beyond stupid to have you as a friend. You are either incredibly naive or stupid beyond belief. Your real friends, your political friends want to do away your "gay friends", push them back into the closet, dissolve their marriages, or worse.

I’m actually, sincerely curious if you think ‘conservatives want to do away with gays’? NO ...

--- but you and your party aren't conservatives KellyAnne!

[MDlaxfan76]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

... if you have gay friends, they are beyond stupid to have you as a friend. You are either incredibly naive or stupid beyond belief. Your real friends, your political friends want to do away your "gay friends", push them back into the closet, dissolve their marriages, or worse.

I’m actually, sincerely curious if you think ‘conservatives want to do away with gays’? NO ...

--- but you and your party aren't conservatives KellyAnne!

correct; I know lots of conservatives who are perfectly fine with gay, gender fluid, whatever, indeed some are themselves such. What Petey's crew, though, is are radicals...opposite of conservative.

[a fan]

Order against the RNC on the January 6 Committee's subpoena:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.33.0.pdf

... I scanned the document. Am I correct that the court shot down the RNC totally, all issues?

Yes, and FWIW, a Trump-appointed Judge, Federalist Society member.

So the Federalist Society is no longer ‘evil’, right?

You will never find a post from me calling the Federalist Society "evil." I know a ton more about it than you, and have many many friends -- real ones, not the pretend people you talk about -- that are members, who are conservatives, and who would laugh at talking point vomiters like you.

Alfred Ross, president and founder of the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS) in New York, a George Soros fave: “It's extremely dangerous." Referring to the Federalist Society.

Is it not dangerous?
When granted the kind of power and control they, the org, had in the last Admin...or even more next time?

That said, dangerous does not equal "evil"...Nor does "Trump-apointed" mean "evil". Certainly being a member of the Federalist Society doesn't make one "evil".

I agree with seacoaster, many Federalist members, certainly conservative, would be grossed out by "talking point vomiters like you".

For a so-called ‘former Republican’, you sure are liberal.

am I? Certainly on social issues that would be fair. But that's not how 'conservatism', much less "Republican", used to be defined.

Perhaps the definition of "conservative" in your sort of parlance has changed radically from what it once was? Now it includes an embrace of totalitarians and bigots of all stripes?

But hey, I was never a social conservative, though I was also certainly not a bleeding edge progressive socially either. The more I learned throughout my life, the more liberal socially I became.

And I'm still a Republican.

Bothers you, doesn't it...

Doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, if you’re being honest.

Now dishonesty does bother me. Hypocrisy. Elitism. Arrogance. Those things chafe me big. As long as you’re not any of that, we’d get along great. But if someone is a dishonest, hypocritical, elitist, arrogant kind of fella, nah we’re not getting along. Think of Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry, people I viscerally hate: if you’re like either, it’s not gonna go well for ‘us’.

As for being a ‘conservative’, I’d say being pro-family, pro-common sense, pro-normal, pro-Free speech, pro-Bill of Rights really, pro-business, pro-American are essential hallmarks of conservatism. Are you any of that? If so, you’re likely a conservative.

Quite an interesting list. Let's just take the first one. Am I not "pro-family" if I'm cool with two men or two women married? Or does that make me not "pro-family"???

Seems to me that I'm very pro-family when I support two people making a strong commitment to one another and to the raising of their children together.

But I also don't think it makes me not "pro-family" if I think it's important that someone being abused in a marriage should have our great concern and support, protection from the abuser. I'm also "pro-family" when I support teenage sex education and contraceptives and support of groups that help assist with family planning. That's "pro-family". Heck I also think that a mother who decides she wants an abortion rather than a fourth child should be able to do so without my making her feel guilty about making that choice...and that's "pro-family".

But by the current radical approach, these are ALL being considered "anti-family".

I can do the same with each of your faux list.

I know it might be hard for you to conceive, but many of us conservatives have friends who are gay in committed relationships. They might even have kids!! And amazingly, no one cares and no one beats their chest looking for others’ affirmation!!! Everyone just, uhhhhhh, lives.

The difference between you MD and a conservative is no conservative demands public adulation when we accept folks for who they are; I don’t see my gay friends and family as gay, I see them simply as good people.

I don’t ask others to praise me for having gay friends and family.

Honoring one’s self isn’t a conservative trait, fwiw.

... if you have gay friends, they are beyond stupid to have you as a friend. You are either incredibly naive or stupid beyond belief. Your real friends, your political friends want to do away your "gay friends", push them back into the closet, dissolve their marriages, or worse.

I’m actually, sincerely curious if you think ‘conservatives want to do away with gays’? NO ...

--- but you and your party aren't conservatives KellyAnne!

Don't try and explain these things to Pete. He has NO IDEA what conservatism is , and doesn't get what evangelicals (fake Christians) did to the party when they got a hold of the Republican party......and real conservatives warned America as to what was happening.

It's why he's occupied with the K-12 "stick it to the gays" law.....yet thinks that growing Florida Government by 10% in one year is just a distraction. A footnote, not worth fighting over.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Very accepting, even when it's one of their own...

[dislaxxic]

Trump's direct complicity in the coup attempt continues to evolve in court pleadings.

In the aftermath, both Smith and Neefe referenced Pence to explain their actions. “Then we heard the news on pence,” Neefe posted, “Amd [sic] lost it …. So we stormed.” Smith, probably writing before Congress completed certification in the early hours of the morning on January 7, claimed that, “Pence cucked like we knew he would but that was an Unbelievable show of force and it did its job.”

All of which is to say that the very large Trump sign in Neefe’s guilty plea is more than symbolic. These totally random dudes took Trump’s call to violence as an order. They armed themselves, came to DC having at least considered taking over buildings, and did so explicitly in response to the demands Trump made of Pence.

In the context of the conspiracy, as charged, this largely meets the terms Amit Mehta laid out when ruling it plausible that Trump entered into a conspiracy with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. “He knew the respective roles of the conspirators: his was to encourage the use of force, intimidation, or threats to thwart the Certification from proceeding.” Indeed, they even fit the framework Mehta laid out when deeming it plausible that Trump aided and abetted assaults — like the one using a very large Trump sign — on cops at the Capitol.

As noted, this conspiracy was charged under 18 USC 1512(k), meaning the sentence can be enhanced — as the guidelines have been, with Neefe — because of the use of threats. With this guilty plea, Trump may literally be on the hook for conspiring to obstruct the vote certification via his joint liability in using that very large Trump sign as a weapon to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s win.

..

[dislaxxic]

"...the NYT claims (firewall) that it is unusual for a congressional committee to receive testimony before a grand jury investigation does"

Wrong.

LIKE THE JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION, THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS BOOSTED BY CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

At the start, he [Mueller] asked witnesses to provide him the same materials they were providing to Congress. I believe that in numerous cases, the process of complying with subpoenas led witnesses to believe such subpoenas were the only way Mueller was obtaining information. Trump Organization, especially, withheld a number of documents from Mueller and Congress, including direct contacts with Russian officials and a Steve Bannon email referencing Russian involvement in the election. By obtaining a warrant for Trump Transition materials held by GSA and the Trump Organization emails of Michael Cohen hosted by Microsoft, Mueller got records the subjects of the investigation were otherwise hiding. Steve Bannon, too, falsely told Mueller he didn’t use his personal accounts for campaign business, only to discover Mueller had obtained those records by the time of his October 2018 interview. Surprising witnesses with documents they had been hiding appears to have been one of the ways Mueller slowly coaxed Bannon and Cohen closer to the truth.

We should assume for key figures in the vicinity of Ali Alexander and John Eastman, the same is happening with the January 6 investigation: the very people who’ve been squealing about complying with subpoenas or call records served on their providers are likely ones DOJ obtained covert warrants for.

Then there are the prosecutions that arose entirely out of Congressional interviews. There were three Mueller prosecutions that arose out of Committee investigations.

Perhaps the most interesting was that of Sam Patten — whose interview materials are here. He had an interview with SSCI on January 5, 2018, where he appears to have lied about using a straw donor to buy Inauguration tickets for Konstantin Kilimnik. By March 20, the FBI attempted their first interview of Patten, after which Patten deleted some emails about Cambridge Analytica. And when Mueller did interview Patten on May 22, they already had the makings of a cooperation deal. After getting Patten to admit to the straw purchase and also to violating FARA — the latter of which he would plead guilty months later, on August 31 — Patten then provided a ton of information about how Kilimnik worked and what he had shared with Patten about his role in the 2016 operation, much of which still remained sealed as part of an ongoing investigation in August 2021. Patten had two more interviews in May then appeared before the grand jury, at which he shared more information about how Kilimnik was trying to monitor the investigation. He had two more interviews before pleading guilty, then at least two more after that.

Not only did Patten share information that likely served as part of a baseline for an understanding about Russia’s use of Ukraine to interfere in US politics and provided investigators with an understanding of what the mirror image to Paul Manafort looked like, but this remained secret from much of the public for three months.

It’s less clear precisely when SSCI shared Cohen’s lies with Mueller. But in the same period, both Mueller and SDNY were developing parallel investigations of him. But by the time Cohen pled guilty in SDNY (also in August 2018), Mueller had the evidence to spend almost three months obtaining information from Cohen as well before he entered into a separate plea agreement with Mueller in which he admitted to the secret communications with the Kremlin that he and Trump lied to hide.

Meanwhile, HPSCI’s much more hapless investigation proved a way to get a limited hangout prosecution of Roger Stone. By May 2018, when Mueller developed evidence showing not just ways that Stone was obstructing his own investigation but also how Stone attempted to craft lies to tell to the Committee — coordinated with Jerome Corsi and reliant on threats to Randy Credico — it provided a way to prosecute Stone while protecting Mueller’s ongoing investigation into whether Stone conspired with Russia.

And by all public appearances at the time, it appeared that Congress was acting while Mueller was not. But that was false (and is probably false now). The entire time during which SSCI and HPSCI were taking steps with Cohen and Stone that would late become really useful to the criminal investigation, Mueller was taking active, albeit covert, steps in his own investigations of the two men (whether he was investigating Patten personally or just Kilimnik is uncertain). Mueller obtained his first warrants against Cohen and Stone in July and August, respectively. But no one knew that until the following spring. That is, Cohen and Stone and everyone else focused on Congress while Mueller got to investigate covertly for another nine months.

We should assume the same kind of thing is happening here. All the more so given the really delicate privilege issues raised by this investigation, including Executive, Attorney-Client, and Speech and Debate. When all is said and done, I believe we will learn that Merrick Garland set things up in July such that the January 6 Committee could go pursue Trump documents at the Archives as a co-equal branch of government bolstered by Biden waivers that don’t require any visibility into DOJ’s investigation. Privilege reviews covering Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and John Eastman’s communications are also being done. That is, this time around, DOJ seems to have solved a problem that Mueller struggled with. And they did so with the unsolicited help of the January 6 Committee.

Even those of us who’ve been covering DOJ’s January 6 prosecution day-to-day (unlike Thrush) have no way of saying what DOJ has been doing covertly in the last year — though it is public that they’ve been investigating Alex Jones, the purported new thrust of this investigation, since August.

What we know from recent history, however, is that DOJ’s use of Congress’ work in no way suggests DOJ hasn’t been doing its own.

..

[CU88]

May 20, 2022 (Friday)
Heather Cox Richardson
May 21

As the hearings on the events of January 6th and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election approach, the extent of the operation is becoming clearer.

Last night, lawyers for John Eastman filed a brief arguing, once again, that Eastman should be able to hide documents associated with the attempt to overturn the 2020 election on the grounds that he was working for former president Trump and so their communications are protected by attorney-client privilege. Eastman was the author of the infamous Eastman memo that provided a blueprint for then–vice president Mike Pence to throw the election to Trump, and he has done his best to delay the release of documents despite court orders to turn them over.

The filing is a litany of grievances against the court, but it does offer some new information. Eastman’s team is seeking to protect communications between Eastman “and one or more of six conduits to or agents of the former President with whom Dr. Eastman dealt.” The filing goes on to specify that three of those people worked on Trump’s campaign and that the other three were “members of former President Trump’s immediate staff.” The filing says, “While Dr. Eastman could (and did) communicate directly with former President Trump at times…, many of his communications with the President were necessarily through these agents.”

Among the documents he wants to protect are “[t]wo…hand-written notes from former President Trump about information that he thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation,” as well as documents from state legislators, “a party committeewomen” [sic], and someone who was “coordinating information sessions for state legislators.”

The filing tries to assert that these documents are covered by the attorney-client privilege because Eastman was justified in believing the election was fraudulent, even though reams of evidence have proved it was not. But what it has revealed is that there is written evidence that Trump himself was directly involved in the plotting to overturn the election.

Today, Emma Brown of the Washington Post broke the story that Ginni Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was even more deeply involved in the attack on the election than we knew. Ginni Thomas sent emails to two Arizona lawmakers on November 9, 2020, urging them to ignore the legitimately elected presidential electors for Democrat Joe Biden and replace them with “a clean slate.” Using a platform that provided prewritten emails, she urged the lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure,” and “to fight back against fraud.”

One of the people to whom she wrote, Shawnna Bolick, is married to Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. The Bolicks are close to Clarence Thomas, who is godfather to one of the Bolicks’ children. Shawnna Bolick responded to Thomas: “I hope you and Clarence are doing great!” In 2021, Bolick introduced a bill to allow the Arizona legislature to choose its own electors, regardless of the will of the voters. She is now running for secretary of state, where she would oversee the state’s elections.

Justice Thomas was apparently talking about the leak of the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade when on May 6 he told a group of judges and lawyers that our justice system is in danger if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with.”

And then, this afternoon, Isaac Stanley-Becker and Shawn Boburg, also of the Washington Post, reported that the billionaire co-founder, chair, and chief technology officer of the computer technology corporation Oracle, Larry Ellison, also participated in a call about the 2020 election. Legal filings in a court case against True the Vote, an organization that has spread lies about widespread voter fraud, contained a note from True the Vote’s founder Catherine Engelbrecht that read: "Jim [Bopp, a lawyer for True the Vote] was on a call this evening with [Trump lawyer] Jay Sekulow, [South Carolina Senator] Lindsey O. Graham, [Fox News Channel personality] Sean Hannity, and Larry Ellison…. He explained the work we were doing and they asked for a preliminary report asap, to be used to rally their troops internally, so that's what I'm working on now."

Ellison, whom Stanley-Becker and Boburg identify as the 11th richest person in the world, gives significant money to right-wing causes and candidates, including Lindsey Graham, to whom he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2018. More recently, he pledged $1 billion of the $44 billion deal for Elon Musk to buy Twitter.

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol continues to collect information. Today, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani met with its members for nine hours. Initially, he said he would not talk with them unless his testimony was videotaped.

And the conspirators are not faring well in court: today, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols sanctioned Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who has thrown his lot in with Trump and fought hard to overturn the election. Nichols called at least some of Lindell’s claims against the Smartmatic Corporation, a voting systems company, “groundless” and “frivolous.” Nichols threw out Lindell’s lawsuits against Smartmatic and other voting systems companies, and ordered Lindell to pay some of the costs Smartmatic has run up defending itself.

Lindell told Bloomberg News: “Whatever the judge thinks, that’s his opinion. I’ve got lawyers doing more important things like removing these machines from every state.”

[dislaxxic]

Clarence and Ginni Thomas Are Telling Us Exactly How the 2024 Coup Will Go Down

It’s easy to dismiss the demented texts and emails from a sitting justice’s spouse to public officials who have long-standing professional connections to that justice as zany conspiracy theorizing. Ginni Thomas can be lumped into the QAnon weirdos bucket with Cleta Mitchell, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Lindell—hapless insurrection enthusiasts who were unable to marshal a single winning argument in an actual court of law after the 2020 election. But the other way to look at the texts and emails that were pinging around the highest echelons of power and influence in the weeks after November 2020 is as a warning and road map for what is already being put into place for the next presidential contest. But next time, the lawyers won’t be sweating brown makeup or referencing crackpot theories of Italian election meddling.

What Thomas was emailing was a prefabbed piece of legal advocacy that urged Arizona state officials to “Please stand strong in the face of political and media pressure. Please reflect on the awesome authority granted to you by our constitution. And then please take action to ensure that a clean slate of electors is chosen for our state.” That isn’t just words. It’s actually a theory underlying the subversion of an entire presidential election. It’s also a theory her husband has endorsed as a matter of constitutional law. It didn’t work in 2020 because the legal and political structures to support it weren’t in place at the time. Those pieces are being put into place as we type this.

Recall, for instance, that back in November of 2020, it wasn’t clear there were five votes at the Supreme Court to support the proposition that state legislatures could simply set aside election results they deemed tainted by impropriety. Recall that when lawyer/insurrectionists John Eastman (a Thomas clerk) and Jeffrey Bossert Clark floated that notion at the White House and elsewhere, serious DOJ attorneys told them in no uncertain terms to go away. Recall finally that one of the lawmakers in Arizona, Shawnna Bolick, is married to a state Supreme Court justice and is parent to Clarence Thomas’ godchild. Bolick, as Jane Mayer of the New Yorker reported in 2021, later introduced legislation that “would enable a majority of the legislature to override the popular vote … and dictate the state’s electoral college votes itself.” In other words, what Bolick couldn’t lawfully do in 2020 is a thing she hopes to do under color of law in future. Oh, and Bolick is now running for secretary of state, the office that oversees state elections.

The New York Times reported this weekend on the proliferation of Bolick’s fellow travelers: election-deniers seeking or holding office in states that will decide the winner of the 2024 presidential race. According to their tally, at least 357 sitting Republican legislators in swing states “have used the power of their office to discredit or try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.” That number amounts to “44 percent of the Republican legislators in the nine states where the presidential race was most narrowly decided.” Moreover, election deniers around the country are running for secretary of state and attorney general—vying to be swing states’ top election officer and top cop, respectively. If successful, they can use this power to aggressively investigate bogus claims of voter fraud, attempt to nullify Democratic ballots, refuse to certify the true results, and even try to approve an “alternative” slate of electors for the loser. This is what Ginni Thomas was pushing two years ago, and what her husband has already deemed constitutionally permissible.

Will any of this work? The Thomases clearly think it will. At the same time Ginni was lobbying state legislators to overturn the results, Clarence was developing and promoting a constitutional theory that would lend legitimacy to just such a brazen coup. The justice has become an avid fan of the “independent state legislature doctrine,” a verifiably false, pseudo-originalist theory that allows state legislatures to ignore the real results and rig elections for Republicans. Thomas repeatedly deployed this theory during the 2020 race in an effort to void mail ballots in battleground states (which disproportionately favored Democrats). He later peddled a somewhat sanitized version of the Big Lie, falsely asserting that mail ballots—specifically, those used to elect Joe Biden in 2020—are highly susceptible to voter fraud. Ever since, he has continued to champion the theory whenever lower courts’ election law rulings happen to help Democrats. As our colleague Richard Hasen has pointed out, it looks increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will decide this issue by 2024.

..

[CU88]

We keep finding these traitors guilty!

A former Army reservist and security guard at a Naval weapons station was found guilty on all counts for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/11018417 ... pitol-riot

Our government needs to purge these DEPLORABLES from our military.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We keep finding these traitors guilty!

A former Army reservist and security guard at a Naval weapons station was found guilty on all counts for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/11018417 ... pitol-riot

Our government needs to purge these DEPLORABLES from our military.

Don’t ask, don’t tell.

[CU88]

June 2, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
Jun 3

Yesterday, Kyle Cheney at Politico flagged a new document released last week by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. John Eastman, the lawyer informally advising Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, has tried repeatedly to slow down or stop producing the documents the courts have told him he must. As part of that process, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter reviewed a number of documents. In March, he concluded that one particular memo must be released under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, a rule that shields communications between lawyers and their clients.

That memo was perhaps “the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action,” Carter wrote. He said that the memo “knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act,” the 1887 law that establishes clear procedures for states to certify their electoral votes and assigns to the Vice President the role of opening the certified electoral votes. Carter continued that the memo “likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Last week, the January 6 committee made the memo public in its ongoing legal fight with Eastman.

The memo is a several-page document from Kenneth Chesebro to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, then sent to Eastman, outlining precisely how then–vice president Mike Pence could refuse to count the electors for Democrat Joe Biden. It is the detailed version of the story we now know all too well: Trump activists in the states would claim their own electors, and even though they would not be legally certified, Pence would say he couldn’t count in either slate until the election was more closely examined. Chesebro hammered hard on the idea that the Constitution gave the vice president alone the authority to determine the outcome of a presidential election. This, he wrote, was the “strict textual, originalist basis” rather than the rules set out in the Electoral Count Act.

His plan was for Pence to refuse to preside over the counting of electors, as specified in the ECA, and instead to have Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) or another Republican in the chair. That officer would refuse to count the ballots where there were two slates, thus insulating Trump and Pence from the election steal.

Chesebro’s goal was not necessarily to install Trump back in the White House, which he was not entirely convinced the Supreme Court would accept “even though a majority might well agree…that the Constitution is correctly construed, from an originalist perspective.” Instead, he hoped that, even “if Biden were to win in the Court, much will still have been accomplished, in riveting public attention on election abuses, and building momentum to prevent similar abuses in the future.”

There’s plenty here to unpack, but what jumps out to me is that last line. The conspirators planned to break a federal law in place since 1887 in order to convince Americans that Democrats stole a presidential election—the “big lie”—all with the larger goal of making sure that there could be no “similar abuses in the future.”

We have reached a place where Republican leaders no longer believe in the principle the nation’s Founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The idea that a government’s legitimacy comes from the fact its people choose it was the huge leap the Founders made to create a nation based not on monarchy but on democracy, and it is one of the two foundational principles of our government. Republicans appear to have rejected this principle and moved to the position that the election of Democrats is illegitimate and stopping such a victory—even if it is fairly won—is important enough to break long-standing laws in order to do it.

And so, even after the January 6 plan failed, they have spent a year insisting that Democrat Joe Biden couldn’t possibly have won the presidency legitimately, despite the overwhelming popular vote and winning electoral vote, the many recounts and legal challenges confirming his victory, and the admission by Trump’s own attorney general that the vote was fair and Trump lost.

Their propaganda has worked. On May 31, Reid J. Epstein and Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times noted after the recent Republican primaries that candidates, even those candidates who insisted there was voter fraud in 2020, brushed off the idea that there might have been anything fishy about the Republican primaries. Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), who worked hard to undermine the 2020 election with false claims that it was fraudulent and who spoke at the January 6 rally at the Ellipse in body armor urging Trump supporters to march on the Capitol, told Epstein and Corasaniti that he wasn’t worried about election fraud in Republican primaries because there wasn’t any.

​​“I’m in a Republican primary, and noncitizens don’t normally vote in Republican primaries,” Mr. Brooks said. In another interview, he said that in Alabama, fraud happens “in predominantly Democrat parts of the state.” Republicans, it seems, believe that Democrats cheat but they do not, although an investigation by the Associated Press after the 2020 election found only 475 potential cases of voter fraud in the six states Republicans insisted had been stolen for Biden, most of which were not counted because they were caught, and which, collectively, would not have changed the outcome. These fraudulent votes were not identified by party, and the high-profile cases that have hit the news have involved Republicans, not Democrats.

Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer who worked with Trump to overturn the Georgia count and introduced lawyer John Eastman to the White House effort to come up with a constitutional argument for throwing out Biden’s electors, recently told a conservative radio host: “The only way they win is to cheat.”

This lie has fed the fury of those Republicans increasingly convinced that Democrats will destroy the country, and they are now, as the conspirators planned, taking steps to make sure that Democrats cannot win another election. One of their key projects is what former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon calls the “precinct strategy”: he is urging Trump’s followers to take over Republican precincts so that they can choose poll workers and have a say in who sits on the boards that oversee elections.

A recent piece by Alexandra Berzon in the New York Times explains how Cleta Mitchell has taken this idea on the road, working with right-wing organizations from the Republican National Committee down to fringe groups to create an “army” of poll workers and election monitors. “We’re going to be watching,” she told that radio host. “We’re going to take back our elections.” Mitchell claims she is simply promoting “citizen engagement,” but participants are primed to believe that elections are being stolen and to approach election officials as enemies. The RNC has already recruited nearly 12,000 poll workers and more than 5,000 poll watchers.

On June 1, Heidi Przybyla of Politico reviewed a number of videos that revealed the Republican National Committee’s plan to hamstring the Democrats in future elections by installing partisan Republicans in Democratic-majority precincts as election workers. They can then challenge Democratic voters with the help of “an army” of party lawyers on call. An RNC spokesperson said the party is simply trying to restore balance in election workers in heavily Democratic urban areas, especially Detroit. But challenging ballots has the potential not only to intimidate voters, but also to create enough disruption to sow doubt about an election and justify intervention by Republican-controlled state legislatures.

Nick Penniman, who founded the nonpartisan election watchdog group Issue One and now is its chief executive officer, told Przybyla, “This is completely unprecedented in the history of American elections that a political party would be working at this granular level to put a network together…. It looks like now the Trump forces are going directly after the legal system itself and that should concern everyone.”

[Seacoaster(1)]

Thanks for posting; she nails it again, but dumb-dumbs won't read it because, you know, "socialism" and other non-reasons. Here's the line:

"We have reached a place where Republican leaders no longer believe in the principle the nation’s Founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed.'”

The gerrymanders and vote suppression laws have locked us in to an anti-democratic death spiral.

[cradleandshoot]

Thanks for posting; she nails it again, but dumb-dumbs won't read it because, you know, "socialism" and other non-reasons. Here's the line:

"We have reached a place where Republican leaders no longer believe in the principle the nation’s Founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed.'”

The gerrymanders and vote suppression laws have locked us in to an anti-democratic death spiral.

Does that include the gerrymandering DemocRATS in NYS are guilty of?? How do you suppress a vote?? The last prime example of voter suppression that I know of was a bunch of dudes in Philly hanging outside of a polling place with clubs in their hand. There is some bona fide voter suppression for ya.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Thanks for posting; she nails it again, but dumb-dumbs won't read it because, you know, "socialism" and other non-reasons. Here's the line:

"We have reached a place where Republican leaders no longer believe in the principle the nation’s Founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed.'”

The gerrymanders and vote suppression laws have locked us in to an anti-democratic death spiral.

Does that include the gerrymandering DemocRATS in NYS are guilty of?? How do you suppress a vote?? The last prime example of voter suppression that I know of was a bunch of dudes in Philly hanging outside of a polling place with clubs in their hand. There is some bona fide voter suppression for ya.

Yes, it includes all gerrymandering. I've said so repeatedly. You don't really read.

[old salt]

We keep finding these traitors guilty!

A former Army reservist and security guard at a Naval weapons station was found guilty on all counts for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/11018417 ... pitol-riot

Our government needs to purge these DEPLORABLES from our military.

Don’t ask, don’t tell.

We need to install a Zampolit political officer in every unit. That's been proven very effective.

[cradleandshoot]

Thanks for posting; she nails it again, but dumb-dumbs won't read it because, you know, "socialism" and other non-reasons. Here's the line:

"We have reached a place where Republican leaders no longer believe in the principle the nation’s Founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed.'”

The gerrymanders and vote suppression laws have locked us in to an anti-democratic death spiral.

Does that include the gerrymandering DemocRATS in NYS are guilty of?? How do you suppress a vote?? The last prime example of voter suppression that I know of was a bunch of dudes in Philly hanging outside of a polling place with clubs in their hand. There is some bona fide voter suppression for ya.

Yes, it includes all gerrymandering. I've said so repeatedly. You don't really read.

The emphasis by Democrats is ALWAYS republican gerrymandering. I read very well counselor. The truth is that the nature of how gerrymandering is treated is remarkably selective and cherry picked by both parties. I'm reminded of that old saying about people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Both parties do it because they can and the process to change the makeup of voting districts is an arduous process to say the least.