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

[seacoaster]

Spineless toady and seditionist Mark Meadows getting cold feet:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... estigation

"In a sudden reversal, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will not cooperate with a House of Representatives committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, a lawyer for the former Trump aide said on Tuesday.

Donald Trump arrives at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland, with Mark Meadows, on 2 October 2020.
Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new book
Read more
Meadows indicated last week that he would speak to the panel. But on the same day the Guardian broke news of Meadows’ memoir, The Chief’s Chief, in which he detailed Trump’s positive and negative Covid tests and their cover-up before his first debate with Joe Biden last year.

Trump gave Meadows a glowing blurb for his book but news of its contents kicked off a firestorm of controversy and prompted a backlash from the former president towards Meadows.

On Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a New York Times journalist, reported that “sources close to Trump say he hates Meadows book and feels betrayed by him”.

Haberman also wrote that Meadows’ “cooperation was always seen as bare minimum. The reality doesn’t change much but timing is notable.”

Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, wrote in a letter on Tuesday that a deposition would be “untenable” because the 6 January select committee “has no intention of respecting boundaries” concerning questions that Trump has claimed are off-limits because of executive privilege.

Executive privilege covers the confidentiality or otherwise of communications between a president and his aides. The Biden administration has waived it in the investigation of 6 January. Trump and key allies entwined in events leading up to the storming of the Capitol, around which five people died, have invoked it.

Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information.

In an interview on the conservative Fox News network, the attorney added: “We have made efforts over many weeks to reach an accommodation with the committee.”

But he said the committee’s approach to negotiations and to other witnesses meant Meadows would withdraw cooperation.

“The chairman of the committee [Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi] … publicly said that another witness’s claiming of the fifth amendment would be tantamount to an admission of guilt,” Terwilliger said, claiming that called into question “exactly what is going on with this committee”.

That was a reference to Jeffery Clark, a former justice department official who pitched a plan to Trump regarding overturning election results and who, like Meadows, has been threatened with a charge of contempt of Congress if he does not cooperate with the 6 January investigation.

Terwilliger wrote in his letter: “As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition.”

Meadows has claimed executive privilege covers any communications with Trump that the committee may wish to examine.

In the aftermath of reports about his book – the Guardian being first to report that Meadows’ tries to downplay the Capitol riot as the work of “a handful of fanatics” – key members of the committee suggested that by publishing the memoir Meadows had waived any claim to executive privilege protections.

Adam Schiff of California told Politico it was “very possible that by discussing the events of 6 January in his book … [Meadows is] waiving any claim of privilege.

“So, it’d be very difficult for him to maintain ‘I can’t speak about events to you, but I can speak about them in my book.’”

Thompson, the committee chair, told reporters: “Some of what we plan to ask him is in the excerpts of the book.”

Meadows had been due to appear before the committee on 12 November but failed to show up. At the time, Thompson warned that “there is no valid legal basis for Mr Meadows’s continued resistance to the select committee’s subpoena”.

Another former Trump aide, former campaign chairman and White House strategist Steve Bannon, has been charged with criminal contempt of Congress, the first such charge since 1983. Facing a fine and jail time, he has pleaded not guilty.

Trump has attempted to stall much of the committee’s work, including in an ongoing court case, by arguing that Congress does not have the right to information about his private White House conversations."

[Farfromgeneva]

It’s not cold feet it’s attempting to drag it out to midterms.

[old salt]

Despite the sturm und drang generated by the memo from the former DC NG JAG, the DoD (now under CinC Biden & his appointed SecDef) is still standing by the DoD IG & their report on Jan 6th response & the 2 Generals accused of lying by Col Matthews.

LTG Piatt is still serving as the Director of the Army Staff.
LTG Flynn received his 4th star & is now the Commanding General of the US Army Pacific.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-le ... -timeline/

Let's see what the Jan 6 show trial can turn this into. MSNBC is already all in.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch ... 8089669612

[dislaxxic]

A TAXONOMY OF THE [VISIBLE] JANUARY 6 “CRIME SCENE” INVESTIGATION

A good summary of the investigation so far. Marcy puts the investigative process into six categories and discusses each:

- Militia conspirators and militia associates
- Assault defendants
- Mobilized local networks
- Other felony defendants
- Misdemeanants
- Organizer inciters

In preparation for a post about how DOJ might or might not make the move beyond prosecuting pawns who breached the Capitol to those who incited them to come to the Capitol, I want to describe a taxonomy of the January 6 “crime scene” investigation — which I mean to encompass the investigation as it has worked up from the people who actually stormed the Capitol. This is my understanding of how the many already-charged defendants fit together.

People complain that DOJ has been doing nothing in the 11 months since the riot. But this has been a central focus of DOJ’s effort: understanding how this plan worked, and then assembling enough evidence and cooperating witnesses to be able to lay out several intersecting conspiracies that will show not just that these groups wanted to prevent the certification of the vote (what they’re currently charged with), but pursued a plan to lead a mob attack on the Capitol to ensure that happened.

Proving these interlocking conspiracies would be vital to moving up from the militias, because it shows the premeditation involved in the assault on the Capitol. DOJ hasn’t rolled this out yet, but they seem to be very very close.

..

[Kismet]

https://web.archive.org/web/20210716135 ... -fraud.pdf

The above link will take you to the entire Power Point presentation entitled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN” dated January 5, 2021 and referenced in an email that Mark Meadows turned over to the House Select Committee. Nuts.

I am certain the committee has a copy of the file as well.

Former DOPUS just lost appeal on privilege. The DC Court of Appeals has REJECTED Trump's appeal of the release of the materials from the National Archives. The decision was unanimous and emphatic.

Then there's this - National Archives: Meadows may not have stored all Trump-era records 'properly. The acknowledgment comes amid his clash with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/0 ... ump-524043

In related news -
Gun seized at Longworth House Office Bldg today was loaded w/ 14 rounds of ammo in 15-round magazine. Gun not registered in DC and
carried by worker who checked bag, but it wasn't noticed on XRAY til man retrieved & left. Police canvassed area & locked door. Jeffrey Allsbrooks, 57, was taken into custody about four minutes after he entered the Longworth House Office Building. Officers tracked down Allsbrooks, who works in the office of the House Chief Administrative Officer. Police said Allsbrooks told them that he forgot the gun was in his bag, officers who were stationed at a security screening checkpoint at one of the building’s doors “spotted an image of a handgun in a bag on the X–ray screen,” Capitol Police said. No idea why they didn't stop him as soon as his bag was screened but allowed him to leave with a loaded handgun in the bag

[jhu72]

Appeals Court finds against Trump in his attempt to protect documents in national archive. Seems like more and more scumbags cooperating with committee, and good useful information being discovered. Good day for the good guys, not so good for the treasonous scumbags - not cooperating.

[seacoaster]

Appeals Court finds against Trump in his attempt to protect documents in national archive. Seems like more and more scumbags cooperating with committee, and good useful information being discovered. Good day for the good guys, not so good for the treasonous scumbags - not cooperating.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 926128.pdf

Next is Mr. PowerPoint.

Worth quoting:

"For all of the foregoing reasons, former President Trump has not shown that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. We do not come to that conclusion lightly. The confidentiality of presidential communications is critical to the effective functioning of the Presidency for the reasons that former President Trump presses, and his effort to vindicate that interest is itself a right of constitutional import.

But our Constitution divides, checks, and balances power to preserve democracy and to ensure liberty. For that reason, the executive privilege for presidential communications is a qualified one that Mr. Trump agrees must give way when necessary to protect overriding interests. See Oral Arg. Tr. 33:18–21, 34:23–25. The President and the Legislative Branch have shown a national interest in and pressing need for the prompt disclosure of these documents. What Mr. Trump seeks is to have an Article III court intervene and nullify those judgments of the President and Congress, delay the Committee’s work, and derail the negotiations and accommodations that the Political Branches have made. But essential to the rule of law is the principle that a former President must meet the same legal standards for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief as everyone else. And former President Trump has failed that task.

Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have “[a] Republic”—“if [we] can keep it.” The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted. In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden’s assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.

The judgment of the district court denying a preliminary injunction is affirmed."

[CU88]

https://web.archive.org/web/20210716135 ... -fraud.pdf

The above link will take you to the entire Power Point presentation entitled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN” dated January 5, 2021 and referenced in an email that Mark Meadows turned over to the House Select Committee. Nuts.

I am certain the committee has a copy of the file as well.

Former DOPUS just lost appeal on privilege. The DC Court of Appeals has REJECTED Trump's appeal of the release of the materials from the National Archives. The decision was unanimous and emphatic.

Then there's this - National Archives: Meadows may not have stored all Trump-era records 'properly. The acknowledgment comes amid his clash with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/0 ... ump-524043

In related news -
Gun seized at Longworth House Office Bldg today was loaded w/ 14 rounds of ammo in 15-round magazine. Gun not registered in DC and
carried by worker who checked bag, but it wasn't noticed on XRAY til man retrieved & left. Police canvassed area & locked door. Jeffrey Allsbrooks, 57, was taken into custody about four minutes after he entered the Longworth House Office Building. Officers tracked down Allsbrooks, who works in the office of the House Chief Administrative Officer. Police said Allsbrooks told them that he forgot the gun was in his bag, officers who were stationed at a security screening checkpoint at one of the building’s doors “spotted an image of a handgun in a bag on the X–ray screen,” Capitol Police said. No idea why they didn't stop him as soon as his bag was screened but allowed him to leave with a loaded handgun in the bag

I don't use PP that much, but man that was a piss poor product. Looks like a middle school student generated that over lunch in the school cafeteria right before it was due!

How is it possible that so many incompetent people were running the U.S. government for four years?

[CU88]

December 12, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Dec 13

Comment
Share
Tonight the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol released a report urging Congress to hold Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress after he has refused to honor a congressional subpoena.

It’s quite a document.

First of all, it pieces together a wide range of material from a number of different sources to lay out very clearly Meadows’s actions in the White House leading up to January 6. Anyone out there who is concerned that they have not heard much from the January 6 Committee will take heart from this comprehensive document, concerning, as it does, only one witness. The committee must have an astonishing amount of material and a number of talented personnel to produce such a report.

More specifically, though, the report places Meadows at key junctures in the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection and on January 6 itself. It places him with Trump on January 6.

But what jumps off the page in the report is the discussion of the National Guard’s response to the riot. The report says that “Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, ‘nonstop’ throughout the day of January 6. And, among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard’s response to the Capitol riot.”

The committee also wrote that “Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to ‘protect pro Trump people’ and that many more would be available on standby.”

Why it took more than three hours for the D.C. National Guard to deploy on January 6 remains a central question about what happened that day. Then–U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund began calling for help at 1:49 p.m., but the National Guard, whose chain of command had been reordered on January 5 to require Miller to approve mobilizing the guard, didn’t deploy until 5:08 p.m.

Army officials have said they moved as quickly as possible; National Guard officials have said they were held back by army leaders who complained about the “optics” of deploying the National Guard to the Capitol. As the title of Amanda Carpenter’s December 10 article in The Bulwark notes: “Someone is lying about why it took so long for the National Guard to deploy on January 6.”

The news that Meadows was on the phone “nonstop” to Miller’s chief of staff on January 6, and that he told someone that “the National Guard would be present to ‘protect pro Trump people’ and that many more would be available on standby,” adds more information to that muddled timeline, although still not enough to figure out what was actually going on.

Did the Trump team expect a counter-protest that day that would enable Trump to declare a state of emergency, as it appears all the living defense secretaries feared when they wrote an open letter on January 3 insisting that the military must stay out of the transition? “Acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates — political appointees, officers and civil servants—are each bound by oath, law and precedent to facilitate the entry into office of the incoming administration, and to do so wholeheartedly,” the ten living former defense secretaries wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on January 3. “They must also refrain from any political actions that undermine the results of the election or hinder the success of the new team.”

If counter-protesters had shown up, muddying the story of what was happening, the day might have played out very differently.

The report from the January 6 Committee also notes that Meadows apparently used an encrypted phone and that he communicated frequently with members of Congress about challenging the election.

The report demolishes Meadows’s argument that he cannot testify because of executive privilege. It notes that President Joe Biden has not asserted executive privilege over the matters about which Meadows would testify, and neither has former president Donald Trump. It appears Meadows is basing his refusal to testify on a letter from “former-President Trump’s counsel, Justin Clark, to Mr. Meadows’s then-counsel, Mr. Gast, expressing former-President Trump’s apparent belief that ‘Mr. Meadows is immune from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to his official responsibilities.’’’ The letter told Meadows not to testify or produce documents.

Such a letter does not officially assert privilege, even if Trump had the authority to do so, which it seems likely he does not (since it is the current president who asserts privilege to protect the office, and Biden has declined to do so).

The January 6 Committee also notes that Meadows is refusing to talk about material that he, himself, produced for the committee, and which he has discussed in his new book, thereby waiving any claims to privilege.

Lawyer Teri Kanefield today put together the timeline for Meadows’s production of documents and then abrupt refusal to testify. She notes that Meadows cooperated with the January 6 Committee over materials from his official work accounts. But then he discovered that the committee had subpoenaed the records from his private cell phone from Verizon, records that he had not transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration, as required by law. He stopped cooperating and sued to have the subpoena to Verizon blocked.

Considering how bad the materials Meadows gave to the committee are—both a PowerPoint outlining how to overturn the election and emails about the National Guard protecting pro-Trump protesters, as well as texts with members of Congress about undermining the election results—one can only wonder what’s in the material he is trying so desperately to protect.

The committee will vote tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. whether to hold Meadows in contempt based on the report; the matter will go to the House on Tuesday.

Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has also refused to comply with a subpoena, this one from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis for documents concerning the Trump administration's response to the coronavirus. Navarro, who warned the White House in January 2020 that the coronavirus could become “a full-blown pandemic,” said Trump had given him "a direct order that I should not comply with the subpoena." Navarro’s letter called the chair of the coronavirus committee, Representative James Clyburn (D-SC), “Representative Rayburn.” (The committee works out of the Rayburn House Office Building.)

Trump confirmed his opposition to the subpoena, saying, “The Communist Democrats are engaging in yet another Witch Hunt, this time going after my Administration's unprecedented and incredible coronavirus response…. The Witch Hunts must end!"

Finally, Fox News Channel reporter Chris Wallace announced tonight that he was leaving FNC to join CNN+, a streaming service launching in 2022. An actual journalist on the channel whose terms of service explicitly announce it is “for your personal enjoyment and entertainment,” rather than news, Wallace lent legitimacy to the channel’s opinion personalities, who have increasingly slid toward right-wing propaganda.

[seacoaster]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

Is it clear as to the date of the email claiming the National Guard would be there to protect pro-Trump people?

Salty, Is that the role of the National Guard???

For the legal beagles, how does the recent rather scathing decision on Trump's claims of Executive Privilege impact the assertions of such by Meadows and all the various others? I realize that the other decision pertains to documents held by the Archives, and the waiver of Executive Privilege to such by the current POTUS, but does it overlap at all? That case has the benefit of a specific review by the current POTUS of the requested documents, by tranche, and the decision to waive, but does it or can this waiver be expanded to be inclusive of any documents or testimony specific to the requests of the JAN 6 Committee, if well defined as pertaining to the plans and actions and underlying rationale related to the Jan 6 insurrection?

Meadows would presumably have the best sort of claim, if Executive Privilege was found to survive the end of a Presidency, but do we need a separate test case to determine that it does not, whether generally or under certain conditions?

[Kismet]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

Is it clear as to the date of the email claiming the National Guard would be there to protect pro-Trump people?

Salty, Is that the role of the National Guard???

For the legal beagles, how does the recent rather scathing decision on Trump's claims of Executive Privilege impact the assertions of such by Meadows and all the various others? I realize that the other decision pertains to documents held by the Archives, and the waiver of Executive Privilege to such by the current POTUS, but does it overlap at all? That case has the benefit of a specific review by the current POTUS of the requested documents, by tranche, and the decision to waive, but does it or can this waiver be expanded to be inclusive of any documents or testimony specific to the requests of the JAN 6 Committee, if well defined as pertaining to the plans and actions and underlying rationale related to the Jan 6 insurrection?

Meadows would presumably have the best sort of claim, if Executive Privilege was found to survive the end of a Presidency, but do we need a separate test case to determine that it does not, whether generally or under certain conditions?

There is some speculation, that many of these folks did not comply with the Records Act and also used non-government phones and emails in many of these activities. Gee whiz why is NOBODY ballistic over the use of non-secure, non-government apparatus? Former DOPUS used an unsecured personal cell phone for FOUR YEARS!

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

Is it clear as to the date of the email claiming the National Guard would be there to protect pro-Trump people?

Salty, Is that the role of the National Guard???

For the legal beagles, how does the recent rather scathing decision on Trump's claims of Executive Privilege impact the assertions of such by Meadows and all the various others? I realize that the other decision pertains to documents held by the Archives, and the waiver of Executive Privilege to such by the current POTUS, but does it overlap at all? That case has the benefit of a specific review by the current POTUS of the requested documents, by tranche, and the decision to waive, but does it or can this waiver be expanded to be inclusive of any documents or testimony specific to the requests of the JAN 6 Committee, if well defined as pertaining to the plans and actions and underlying rationale related to the Jan 6 insurrection?

Meadows would presumably have the best sort of claim, if Executive Privilege was found to survive the end of a Presidency, but do we need a separate test case to determine that it does not, whether generally or under certain conditions?

There is some speculation, that many of these folks did not comply with the Records Act and also used non-government phones and emails in many of these activities. Gee whiz why is NOBODY ballistic over the use of non-secure, non-government apparatus? Former DOPUS used an unsecured personal cell phone for FOUR YEARS!

It's not as if they didn't know better, weren't used to the changing technology or some other lame excuse.

[seacoaster]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

Is it clear as to the date of the email claiming the National Guard would be there to protect pro-Trump people?

Salty, Is that the role of the National Guard???

For the legal beagles, how does the recent rather scathing decision on Trump's claims of Executive Privilege impact the assertions of such by Meadows and all the various others? I realize that the other decision pertains to documents held by the Archives, and the waiver of Executive Privilege to such by the current POTUS, but does it overlap at all? That case has the benefit of a specific review by the current POTUS of the requested documents, by tranche, and the decision to waive, but does it or can this waiver be expanded to be inclusive of any documents or testimony specific to the requests of the JAN 6 Committee, if well defined as pertaining to the plans and actions and underlying rationale related to the Jan 6 insurrection?

Meadows would presumably have the best sort of claim, if Executive Privilege was found to survive the end of a Presidency, but do we need a separate test case to determine that it does not, whether generally or under certain conditions?

I'm not conversant with all of this, and the distinctions that might exist in respect to Trump's assertion of the privilege, and Meadows's assertion of the privilege, except to say this. The privilege here -- "Executive Privilege" -- is held by the entity known as the Office of the President of the United States, not by US Grant or Andrew Jackson or Obama or Trump. When, for example, a company merges with another company or is purchased out of bankruptcy, the holder of the privilege is not the former management team; the holder of the privilege -- and the "person" who can waive it -- is the new owner. So I think the dispute between Trump and the current holder of the OPOUS is pretty much dispositive of the dispute between the former COS and the current holder.

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is the link to the Meadows report seeking contempt authorization, with exhibits.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calend ... tID=114313

Among other things, there is a message from the WH COS telling someone that the National Guard will be on site in the Capitol to protect pro-Trump people. Nice right? Nothing new? Bored of this stuff? Can't we just keep our heads in the sand?

Is it clear as to the date of the email claiming the National Guard would be there to protect pro-Trump people?

Salty, Is that the role of the National Guard???

For the legal beagles, how does the recent rather scathing decision on Trump's claims of Executive Privilege impact the assertions of such by Meadows and all the various others? I realize that the other decision pertains to documents held by the Archives, and the waiver of Executive Privilege to such by the current POTUS, but does it overlap at all? That case has the benefit of a specific review by the current POTUS of the requested documents, by tranche, and the decision to waive, but does it or can this waiver be expanded to be inclusive of any documents or testimony specific to the requests of the JAN 6 Committee, if well defined as pertaining to the plans and actions and underlying rationale related to the Jan 6 insurrection?

Meadows would presumably have the best sort of claim, if Executive Privilege was found to survive the end of a Presidency, but do we need a separate test case to determine that it does not, whether generally or under certain conditions?

I'm not conversant with all of this, and the distinctions that might exist in respect to Trump's assertion of the privilege, and Meadows's assertion of the privilege, except to say this. The privilege here -- "Executive Privilege" -- is held by the entity known as the Office of the President of the United States, not by US Grant or Andrew Jackson or Obama or Trump. When, for example, a company merges with another company or is purchased out of bankruptcy, the holder of the privilege is not the former management team; the holder of the privilege -- and the "person" who can waive it -- is the new owner. So I think the dispute between Trump and the current holder of the OPOUS is pretty much dispositive of the dispute between the former COS and the current holder.

Yes, that's my understanding as well, at least in normal such situations.

And man, this last decision was quite scathing...expecting SCOTUS to either deny cert or expedite.

But I'm wondering whether this needs to be separately adjudicated. Or whether Biden needs to further waive Executive Privilege more broadly to the various Jan 6 inquiries of all parties, though POTUS is not in a position to specifically review the documents requested first. Just the subpoena requests of the Committee.

Seems to me that SCOTUS could/should make clear that there's no Executive Privilege unilaterally claimable by a former President and that any claim of need should have to go through the current POTUS office, with whatever is, in the view of the claimant, presented to POTUS for review...eg if something really sensitive to national defense was being requested, seems to me that a former POTUS could at least ask the current POTUS to make a determination...that way, there's at least a check on such being disclosed. And the current POTUS would then 'own' that decision, including any political ramifications of such a disclosure.

[dislaxxic]

MARK MEADOWS PROMISED THE KIND OF NATIONAL GUARD PROTECTION THAT PROUD BOY CHARLES DONOHOE SEEMED TO EXPECT

Noose tightening on Meadows and his boss...

..

[seacoaster]

Anyone watch Cheney read the texts from Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity to Meadows's private cell phone?

Anyone concerned that the WH COS was using a private cell phone and thereafter didn't park those records with the National Archive?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1470554326258966535

Anyone care that the Moron didn't respond or act for hours while his supporters roamed the halls of Congress?

Anyone care that Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity quickly moved to place blame for the attack on the Capitol on, you know, black folks?

Anyone remember Susan MacDougal, who did 18 months in jail for defying a congressional subpoena?

Anyone remember the complete performative bullsh*t Trey Gowdy put on for a couple of years?

How can you support a party that countenances all of this?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1470549199963901953

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone watch Cheney read the texts from Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity to Meadows's private cell phone?

Anyone concerned that the WH COS was using a private cell phone and thereafter didn't park those records with the National Archive?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1470554326258966535

Anyone care that the Moron didn't respond or act for hours while his supporters roamed the halls of Congress?

Anyone care that Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity quickly moved to place blame for the attack on the Capitol on, you know, black folks?

Anyone remember Susan MacDougal, who did 18 months in jail for defying a congressional subpoena?

Anyone remember the complete performative bullsh*t Trey Gowdy put on for a couple of years?

How can you support a party that countenances all of this?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1470549199963901953

Cheney's remarks were indeed devastating.
Happened to catch it last night on CSPAN, I was clicking past but saw what it was, so stopped...

Devastating....but you're right, a big part of the populace not only 'doesn't care', many cheer on this complete abrogation of the rule of the law.

And it's indeed disgusting.

But Cheney shows us what it's supposed to look like.

[CU88]

Rep. Cheney hints at where this is going: federal criminal charges for President Trump.

"Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s proceedings?"

She's reading 18 U.S.C. 1505
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

[CU88]

Anyone watch Cheney read the texts from Ingraham, Kilmeade and Hannity to Meadows's private cell phone?

If only Hannity, Kilmeade and Ingraham had had some way of reaching out to Trump's supporters on that day, and the 340 days since, to tell them what happened was wrong...