The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

[wildcat09 29,453]

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

no he's fucking not. he lost too much the first time. he'll grift and fundraise and then pocket everything and at the last minute anoint someone to take his place. that is, if he is still alive and/or not in jail/tied up in lawsuits

[brown water 3,780]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

They are scared shitless.

Not quite 

 

 

386C2ED6-6A1A-444B-8FD2-C957F93B2B1A.webp

Edited December 20, 2021 by brown water

[Poe It Up 126]

28 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

People still think Trump is running again?

I don’t think he will actually. Republican’s saw what winning over suburban women could do for them in Virginia and Trump would fuck that all up. Still, he isn’t going to jail. That’s nuts. 

[hookemATL 11,976]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

I don’t think he will actually. Republican’s saw what winning over suburban women could do for them in Virginia and Trump would fuck that all up. Still, he isn’t going to jail. That’s nuts. 

Regardless of if they see the damage he did with suburban women voters, they will be powerless IF he did decide to enter the fray. He’d instantly become the favorite, start winning primaries, and the GOP would fall right in line. 

[Biff Tannen 45,763]

2 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

Regardless of if they see the damage he did with suburban women voters, they will be powerless IF he did decide to enter the fray. He’d instantly become the favorite, start winning primaries, and the GOP would fall right in line. 

It is going to be quite fascinating to watch play out, from a political standpoint. Horrifying from every other standpoint. 

[GopherRock 1,772]

30 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

I don’t think he will actually. Republican’s saw what winning over suburban women could do for them in Virginia and Trump would fuck that all up. Still, he isn’t going to jail. That’s nuts. 

IMHO the only way Trump doesn't run again in 2024 is if he's dead or in prison. (I figure it's about an even 3-way split on the chances of each). And the instant he declares, he clears the Republican field.

The only consolation is that all of the tampering in Georgia is in Fulton County, not MGT country.

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, and that doesn't even take into account his fear of losing.  That single thing, I think, is what keeps him from running again.  The power over the GOP and the grift are just gravy that make it even less likely that he runs.

Something greater would have to overcome that fear, I think, to get him to run.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

His narcissism won't let him run again after he lost last year.

He was so paranoid that he wouldn't win, that for 6 months or so leading up to the election he told everybody the only way he could lose was through a stolen election.

That is a lot of narcissism.

And I think his hemming and hawing about trying to get the Jan. 6 insurrectionists to stop was partly due to his narcissism - those folks actually believed what he was saying, and I think on some level he was hoping that they would actually do something to justify his lies. 

And if Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Don Jr., etc. actually believed he won, they would not all be telling Mark Meadows to tell him to call it off

Hell, Fox News would have been in 24/7 "THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN" with a constant ticker saying how many days since the election was stolen, and not just the Fox and Friends and the evening crews saying their stupid Qanon bullshit.  But no, Fox News had called it early, and had it prominently on their website on the week of the election

 

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

1 minute ago, GopherRock said:

IMHO the only way Trump doesn't run again in 2024 is if he's dead or in prison. (I figure it's about an even 3-way split on the chances of each). And the instant he declares, he clears the Republican field.

He's afraid of losing (again).

He's learned he can grift without the effort of running or holding office.  He's literally raked in hundreds of millions, that he's probably funneling through his properties.

[TwiceHorn 31,684]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

It's a two-edged sword for him.  It wants him to run and win, but the very real specter that he won't is intolerable.  More intolerable than not running at all and basking in GQP glory and money.

[Biff Tannen 45,763]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He was so paranoid that he wouldn't win, that for 6 months or so leading up to the election he told everybody the only way he could lose was through a stolen election.

I don't think this was paranoia.  It was a deliberate propaganda technique.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,243]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

[Poe It Up 126]

51 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

Regardless of if they see the damage he did with suburban women voters, they will be powerless IF he did decide to enter the fray. He’d instantly become the favorite, start winning primaries, and the GOP would fall right in line. 

They fell in line because he was the president and he was their best path to the White House. The Republicans want to win first and foremost and Virginia showed them the playbook. Trump’s cooked. 

[bolverk 29,817]

16 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

They fell in line because he was the president and he was their best path to the White House. The Republicans want to win first and foremost and Virginia showed them the playbook. Trump’s cooked. 

I generally agree that the GOP needs to win over and retain the votes of suburban women. I think their ability to do that, however, will be largely dependent on what happens with Roe at the Supreme Court and how Republican governors/legislatures respond. They're liable to turn around and royally piss off those women all over again.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

People still think Trump is going to jail? 

Yes.

[WhatTheBuck 28,830]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

I agree. If he chooses to run, he’ll skate to the nomination because practically no one will oppose him. Any who do will be excommunicated from the Republican Party. The GOP will do everything in their power to install him as President regardless of the vote. Once he’s in, he’ll plan to never leave. One thing he learned the first time around was that as President he’s above the law. He can’t resist that. He’ll run. 

[Goofyboy 3,308]

Yes.

As of about an hour ago making the rounds on Twitter:

The Jan 6th committee is apparently weighing the making of a criminal referral recommendation on Trump.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,243]

8 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

As of about an hour ago making the rounds on Twitter:

The Jan 6th committee is apparently weighing the making of a criminal referral recommendation on Trump.

[SimonBolivar 10,961]

12 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

As of about an hour ago making the rounds on Twitter:

The Jan 6th committee is apparently weighing the making of a criminal referral recommendation on Trump.

Yeah I'm sure he'll end up in Alcatraz with Elvis.

Edited December 21, 2021 by SimonBolivar

[JimmyJames 12,271]

16 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

As of about an hour ago making the rounds on Twitter:

The Jan 6th committee is apparently weighing the making of a criminal referral recommendation on Trump.

Trump got way with a ton of illegal shit because he was the president. Previously before being the president he got away with illegal shit because he was rich and nobody cared.

He ain’t the president anymore. And now plenty of people care.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,243]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/politics/jan-6-committee-criminal-referrals.html

When the House formed a special committee this summer to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol assault, its stated goal was to compile the most authoritative account of what occurred and make recommendations to ensure it never happens again.

But as investigators sifted through troves of documents, metadata and interview transcripts, they started considering whether the inquiry could yield something potentially more consequential: evidence of criminal conduct by President Donald J. Trump or others that they could send to the Justice Department urging an investigation.

That move — known as sending a criminal referral — has no legal weight, as Congress has little ability to tell the Justice Department what investigations it should undertake. But it could have a substantial political impact by increasing public pressure on Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who in his first year in office has largely sidestepped questions about what prosecutors are doing to examine the conduct of Mr. Trump and his aides as they promoted baseless allegations of voter fraud.

The questions of criminality go far beyond the contempt of Congress referrals that the House has sent to the Justice Department for Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, for their refusal to cooperate with the investigation. (Federal law requires prosecutors to bring contempt of Congress charges before a grand jury upon receiving such a referral.)

According to people briefed on their efforts, investigators for the committee are looking into whether a range of crimes were committed, including two in particular: whether there was wire fraud by Republicans who raised millions of dollars off assertions that the election was stolen, despite knowing the claims were not true; and whether Mr. Trump and his allies obstructed Congress by trying to stop the certification of electoral votes.

It is not clear what, if any, new evidence the committee has that might support a criminal referral, when and how it will determine whether to pursue that option and whether the committee could produce a case strong enough to hold up against inevitable accusations that it acted in a partisan manner.

Behind the scenes, the committee’s day-to-day work is being carried out by a team of 40 investigators and staff members, including former federal prosecutors. The panel has obtained more than 30,000 records and interviewed more than 300 witnesses, including about a dozen last week whom committee members say provided “key” testimony.

In recent weeks, the committee has publicly signaled its interest in the question of criminality. Shortly after obtaining from Mr. Meadows 9,000 pages of documents — including text messages and a PowerPoint presentation — the panel’s top Republican, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, read from the criminal code at a televised hearing.

She suggested that Mr. Trump, by failing to stop the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, might have violated the federal law that prohibits obstructing an official proceeding before Congress.

“We know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were trying to count electoral votes,” Ms. Cheney said, adding: “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

The question is one of the most significant to emerge in the first six months of the investigation.

The panel has nine House members — including two Republicans — and is modeling itself on the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The committee plans to produce the authoritative report about Jan. 6.

It plans to hold televised hearings early next year to lay out for the public how the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement helped lead to the Capitol riot. And it ultimately may propose changes to federal laws, toughening statutes to rein in a president’s conduct and overhauling the Electoral Count Act, which Mr. Trump and his allies sought to exploit in his attempt to cling to power.

One of the challenges the committee faces is that so much has been reported about Mr. Trump’s efforts to hold onto power and the attacks themselves. So far, the numerous disclosures about the role of Mr. Trump, his aides and others who promoted the baseless idea that the election had been stolen from him have had little impact on his Republican support in Congress.

But a credible criminal referral could provide the committee an opportunity to underscore the gravity of what happened while potentially subjecting Mr. Trump and others to intensified legal scrutiny.

Although congressional investigators have no powers to charge a crime, their ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify allows them to reveal new details about events. At times, that process leads to witnesses disclosing potential criminality about themselves or others.

When that occurs, Congress can make a criminal referral to the Justice Department — often in the form of a public letter — that can increase pressure on the department to open investigations. Sometimes members of Congress, amid partisan squabbling, overstate the evidence of criminality and make referrals to the Justice Department that are ignored because they appear political.

 

Congressional investigations also create problems for witnesses because it is against the law to make false or misleading statements to Congress. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, indicted Roger J. Stone Jr. in 2019 for lying to congressional investigators examining Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and for obstructing that inquiry. Mr. Stone was ultimately convicted and then pardoned by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Stone appeared before the Jan. 6 committee on Friday to face questions about his role in the “Stop the Steal” movement. But rather than answer questions, he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he said he feared that Democrats would again accuse him of lying under oath.

At a hearing this month, Ms. Cheney suggested that the committee could subpoena Mr. Trump to answer questions and that criminal penalties would hang over his head if he lied.

“Any communication Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath,” she said. “And if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and a member of the committee, said it was “certainly possible” that the panel would make criminal referrals before the investigation concluded.

“Most of the criminal referrals that I’m aware of, judging from experience in the Russian and Ukrainian investigations, were perjury-related or witness intimidation-related,” he said. “But it’s not unprecedented for Congress to make referrals when we are aware of evidence that people engage in other criminal activity. I wouldn’t exclude that possibility.”

 

One option being examined by the committee, as Ms. Cheney revealed, is whether there is evidence to make a referral of Mr. Trump or others based on an obscure obstruction charge that federal prosecutors have been using to pursue rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6: the disruption of Congress’s duty to certify the final stage of a presidential election.

That charge, which has been used in lieu of more overtly political counts like sedition or insurrection, has been brought against more than 200 rioters.

As part of their effort to weigh whether the charge would be warranted, the committee is trying to glean what it can about what Mr. Trump was saying behind closed doors about what he believed from those who were working with him in the months after Election Day last year, the people briefed on the inquiry said.

The committee is also examining whether there is enough evidence to make a wire fraud referral over how Mr. Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party raised $255.4 million from donors as he and his allies fund-raised off the false claim that the election had been stolen.

The line of inquiry has already created questions about whether people associated with the campaign have criminal exposure and created tension between witnesses and investigators. In November, the committee subpoenaed the chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign, Bill Stepien, to testify. Along with the subpoena, the committee sent Mr. Stepien a letter raising the possibility that he was aware that the campaign was raising money by making false claims about election fraud.

“As manager of the Trump 2020 re-election campaign, you oversaw all aspects of the campaign,” the letter said. “You then supervised the conversion of the Trump presidential campaign to an effort focused on ‘Stop the Steal’ messaging and related fund-raising. That messaging included the promotion of certain false claims related to voting machines despite an internal campaign memo in which campaign staff determined that such claims were false.”

The letter led Mr. Stepien to push back on the committee, claiming that it had unfairly tainted him. His lawyer, Kevin Marino, said in response to questions that the committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, “has expressly advised us that it was never the select committee’s intent to directly or indirectly suggest that Bill Stepien was involved in criminal activity.”

Mr. Marino said that Mr. Thompson “has since informed us that Mr. Stepien was subpoenaed not because the committee has any evidence that he did anything wrong, but based solely on his status as the head of the” campaign. The committee, Mr. Marino said, has since withdrawn its subpoena for Mr. Stepien to testify.

The committee is also looking at Sidney Powell, one of the lead lawyers in Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, who leads an organization that raked in money as she and Mr. Trump spread the lie of widespread election fraud. Her organization, Defending The Republic, raised $14.9 million between December 2020 and July. Ms. Powell’s group has more than $9.3 million in funds on hand, according to an independent audit filed with Florida, which investigated the organization and alleged multiple violations of state law.

So far, Mr. Garland has avoided making substantive public statements about the issue. In a House hearing in October, he declined to answer questions about whether the Justice Department was investigating Mr. Trump and his allies for their role in the Capitol attack.

The Justice Department’s prosecutions stemming from its vast investigation of Jan. 6 — an inquiry that has resulted in slightly more than 700 arrests — have so far concentrated almost exclusively on those who were on the ground at the Capitol that day, breaching barricades, breaking windows or fighting with the police.

The department appears to be building its cases from the ground up, starting with those it can accuse of definable crimes and looking for potential links to others. But it remains unclear whether prosecutors are trying to build cases against people further up the political hierarchy or connecting the attack to Mr. Trump and the aides and supporters who worked with him to overturn the results.

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't think this was paranoia.  It was a deliberate propaganda technique.  

Oh, there was some definite propaganda, but while I'm sure that his aides withheld a lot of unfavorable numbers/information from him, I also think he knew the poll numbers were not in his favor, because he sure as hell ranted about them on twitter.  

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I agree. If he chooses to run, he’ll skate to the nomination because practically no one will oppose him. Any who do will be excommunicated from the Republican Party. The GOP will do everything in their power to install him as President regardless of the vote. Once he’s in, he’ll plan to never leave. One thing he learned the first time around was that as President he’s above the law. He can’t resist that. He’ll run. 

He didn't have fun in the White House though - he found himself having to engage in lots of activities and travel and what not that crimped his lifestyle, and he's raked in a few hundred million after the election.   He didn't like Air Force One, didn't like the White House, couldn't spend enough time in Mar-a-Lago.

While I'm sure plenty of media still follow him around, he's able to almost fully control their access to him and those around him these days as well.

Only way he runs is if he thinks he has to win in order to beat some legal issue.  Otherwise he sits back in Mar-a-Lago, throws an occasional rally, and lets the money roll in.

I do think he will have a full-on proxy controlling the GOP purse strings in short order.  Don Jr. or Kush or Miller will be running that show, and he gets to be kingmaker and funnel the money through his properties.

[WhatTheBuck 28,830]

11 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 He didn't have fun in the White House though - he found himself having to engage in lots of activities and travel and what not that crimped his lifestyle, and he's raked in a few hundred million after the election.   He didn't like Air Force One, didn't like the White House, couldn't spend enough time in Mar-a-Lago.

While I'm sure plenty of media still follow him around, he's able to almost fully control their access to him and those around him these days as well.

Only way he runs is if he thinks he has to win in order to beat some legal issue.  Otherwise he sits back in Mar-a-Lago, throws an occasional rally, and lets the money roll in.

I do think he will have a full-on proxy controlling the GOP purse strings in short order.  Don Jr. or Kush or Miller will be running that show, and he gets to be kingmaker and funnel the money through his properties.

He had some fun. He liked the power, he liked the attention, he liked being above the law. He liked pumping millions of our tax dollars into his private properties. He liked having other Republicans, businessmen, and foreign governments pumping money into his properties in order to curry his favor. Whatever he didn’t like about living in the White House, he’d like living in prison even less.

He’s not wired to be the puppet master pulling the strings behind the scenes while someone else gets all the attention. Trump is all about Trump. First, last, and everywhere in between. He’s not going to spend his money so someone else can get all the glory.

How can he go on complaining that the 2020 election was stolen from him if he doesn’t run again in 2024? What is the point of all those Republican legislatures laying the groundwork to steal the 2024 election if not to personally benefit Trump? He still wants to be Putin and I don’t think he’s done trying yet.

We’ll see what happens. I hope you’re right. I hope Michael Cohen was right and Trump’s fear of losing will keep him from running again. But I fear Barton Gellmon was right and “Donald Trump will seek and win the Republican nomination for president in 2024. The party is in his thrall. No opponent can break it and few will try. Neither will a setback outside politics—indictment, say, or a disastrous turn in business—prevent Trump from running. If anything, it will redouble his will to power.”

[Gil Bang 26,099]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

ah, so he's innocent. got it

[Red Five 41,066]

All these totally innocent republicans, refusing to assist the investigation into.... an attack on our Capitol. 

Imagine if after 9/11 a shitpot of democrats had been like "Go to hell 9/11 commission! You'll never get me to talk!".

"Um, what?"

[Guest Lobo]

A restraining order in Florida?  Those aren't worth the tissue paper I get my bath salts wrapped in that they're printed on.  

 

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I hope Michael Cohen was right and Trump’s fear of losing will keep him from running again.

If he loses again, the blow to his ego will be bigly.  He hates to be called a failure.  And does the GOP continue kissing up to them if he loses twice in a row?

[Guest Lobo]

I think even Trump couldn't deny that there'd be something wholly unique about being the only human being in the history of the world, and will never be matched, to lose a popular vote three times, a general election twice, three times divorced, bankrupt the same casino twice, Impeached twice, and probably face multiple indictments.  

The thought of that, no matter how much he sets the table beforehand, would have to weigh heavily on Trump's ego.  

Don't get me wrong, it's a bold strategy Cotton for Trump.  To run, for 2+ years on a campaign platform of "This upcoming election that I'm running for is already rigged."  It's the perfect playbook for him. You thought, "Make America Great Again" was vague and ill amplified...wait until it's just "Election is Rigged" is just played over and over again.

"Mr. Trump.  Assuming you still win this rigged election, what would be your first 100 day policy initiatives?"

"Doesn't matter.  It's rigged!"  

"Okay, but assuming the rigging was either undone, or you won anyway.  What would your next term look like?"

"Doesn't matter.  It's rigged!"

"Right.  Let's say that's true.  But you still win.  What domestic issues are most critical to your next administration?"
"Who cares, it's all rigged!"  

It's actually a pretty savvy campaign framework for Commander Dipshit if you think about it.  It appeases/fires up MAGA nation, and is messaging that easily be accommodated in Shithead's brain...or whatever is left of it in 3 years time.  Laugh all you want, it's a decent pivot.

[Red Five 41,066]

(I don't think he'd lose)

[Satchel 6,949]

22 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

He's absolutely running again. His narcissism won't let him not. 

He won’t be eligible. Fulton County is coming.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

(I don't think he'd lose)

yeah, i'm right there with you on that. 

but i didn't think he'd lose in 2020, but here we are. without a massive effort by stacy abrams in georgia, and some strong campaigning in arizona, it could've easily gone the other way. also, fox being the first to call arizona (!!! still haven't figured that out), massively helped, even though it should not have done so. 

but 2024 is a different animal. my only hope is that he continues to decline and/or picks a legit crazy person as a vp. but that shit doesn't matter either, because we have legit lunatics in congress right now.

so we're left hoping something comes from this committee or the state of new york. and with all the bad actors with imminent arrests...we are going to be left hoping, i reckon.

[Woland 749]

19 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I think even Trump couldn't deny that there'd be something wholly unique about being the only human being in the history of the world, and will never be matched, to lose a popular vote three times, a general election twice, three times divorced, bankrupt the same casino twice, Impeached twice, and probably face multiple indictments.  

That's a whole lot of losing.

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, Woland said:

That's a whole lot of losing.

One could almost see themselves tiring of losing so much.  But alas, I guess he has a more "Aggie-esque" view of how scoreboards work.  Literally.  And figuratively. 

[bolverk 29,817]

Here's a crazy story about a guy who runs a bar out near Dripping Springs who played a role in trying to overturn the election and may have been the author of that crazy PowerPoint. He's already gotten a couple of nasty Yelp reviews.

Wonder if he posts over in DT.

 

A Retired Colonel’s Unlikely Role in Pushing Baseless Election Claims
Phil Waldron, who owns a bar in Texas, is a case study in how pro-Trump fringe players managed to get a hearing for conspiracy theories at the highest level during the presidential transition.

A few days after President Biden’s inauguration put to rest one of the most chaotic transitions in U.S. history, a former Army colonel with a background in information warfare appeared on a Christian conservative podcast and offered a detailed account of his monthslong effort to challenge the validity of the 2020 vote count.

In a pleasant Texas drawl, the former officer, Phil Waldron, told the hosts a story that was almost inconceivable: how a cabal of bad actors, including Chinese Communist officials, international shell companies and the financier George Soros, had quietly conspired to hack into U.S. voting machines in a “globalist/socialist” plot to steal the election.

In normal times, a tale like that — full of wild and baseless claims — might have been dismissed as the overheated rantings of a conspiracy theorist. But the postelection period was not normal, providing all sorts of fringe players an opportunity to find an audience in the White House.

Mr. Waldron stands as a case study. Working in conjunction with allies of President Donald J. Trump like Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus — and in tandem with others like Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser and a retired lieutenant general — Mr. Waldron managed to get a hearing for elements of his story in the very center of power in Washington.

Last week, the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 issued a subpoena to Mr. Waldron, saying that it wanted to know more about his role in circulating an explosive PowerPoint presentation on Capitol Hill and to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s last chief of staff.

The presentation, which Mr. Meadows gave to the committee (and which he said he never acted on), counseled Mr. Trump to declare a national emergency and to invalidate all digital votes in a bid to stay in power — the same advice that other election deniers gave him at the time.

Spoiler

Committee officials have given Mr. Waldron, who retired from the military in 2016 and now owns a bar in Central Texas, until Jan. 10 to turn over any relevant documents. They have also tentatively set a deposition for the week after.

When The New York Times sent a reporter last week to Mr. Waldron’s bar, outside of Austin, he told the reporter to leave his property immediately. He then called the local sheriff and described the reporter’s car, adding that the reporter was slurring his words and seemed impaired.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Waldron will cooperate with the House committee. But the account he gave in January to the podcast, Flyover Conservatives, and in recent news articles, may give investigators plenty to work with.

Mr. Waldron opened his story by saying that his “research” into the 2020 election began that summer, when he started to examine what he described as a network of nonprofit groups connected to Mr. Soros, an outspoken supporter of liberal causes who has long been at the center of right-wing, often antisemitic conspiracies.

Around that time, Mr. Waldron said, he and his associates — whom he has never named — developed a relationship with a Texas cybersecurity company, Allied Security Operations Group, which was co-founded by a man named Russell J. Ramsland Jr. 

[Oh, look Phillip Huffines donated to his campaign in 2016.]

According to Mr. Waldron, Mr. Ramsland and his team had made a startling discovery: that the Chinese Communist Party, through software companies it controlled, had developed a way to flip votes on American tabulation machines, particularly those built by Dominion Voting Systems. (Dominion has adamantly denied its machines have security flaws and has filed defamation suits against some of those who have repeated the claims, including Fox News, Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell.)

Beginning in August last year, months before Election Day, Mr. Waldron started to “raise an alarm,” as he put it, and tried to get anyone he could interested in his claim that the country’s voting machines were susceptible to hacking.

He told the podcast hosts that he and his partners had reached out to officials in the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, all of which were run by Trump appointees at the time. Mr. Waldron said he also sent an email to Mr. Trump’s director of strategic communications, but all of it “fell on deaf ears.”

But there was one person who listened, Mr. Waldron said: Mr. Gohmert, the Texas Republican and a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group that was traditionally loyal to Mr. Trump and ultimately played an outsize role in his efforts to overturn the election. By Mr. Waldron’s account, Mr. Gohmert promised to pass along his concerns about voting machines to the president, but apparently failed to do so until after the election. (Mr. Gohmert did not respond to questions seeking comment.)

Once the votes were cast and Mr. Trump was declared the loser, Mr. Waldron embarked on what amounted to a two-pronged assault on the election. First, with Mr. Ramsland’s company, Allied Security, he funneled information about supposedly suspicious spikes in votes and other dirt on Dominion Voting Systems to Ms. Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer who filed four unsuccessful lawsuits accusing Dominion of a conspiracy to hack the election.

According to court papers filed by Dominion, Mr. Ramsland was hired that summer by Patrick M. Byrne, the former chief executive of Overstock.com and a Trump supporter, to “reverse engineer” the evidence needed to “mislead people into believing” that the 2020 election had been rigged.

When the legal challenges failed, Mr. Waldron took a new tack. He partnered with Mr. Giuliani, who was spearheading Mr. Trump’s attack on the election, and joined him at a series of unofficial election fraud hearings conducted by lawmakers in a handful of swing states. Mr. Giuliani did not respond to questions seeking comment on Mr. Waldron, but he has testified in a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion that he not only knew and admired Mr. Waldron, but also had “substantial dealings” with him.

Even as he toured the country with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Waldron appeared to have been working on a third attack on the election results: assembling the 38-slide PowerPoint presentation that ended up in Mr. Meadows’s possession. In his podcast interview, Mr. Waldron said that he and his associates had managed to get a nascent version of the proposal — to declare a national emergency and use the crisis to order a recount of paper ballots in eight key counties — to Mr. Trump around Thanksgiving, far earlier than public accounts had suggested.

On the podcast, Mr. Waldron said that he and his team had promised Mr. Trump that they could get preliminary results of the paper recount in 10 days and have final results in a month.

“We gave the president these solutions over time, some as early as before Thanksgiving and some all the way up toward the end of the process,” Mr. Waldron said.

As for how Mr. Trump might go about declaring a national emergency, Mr. Waldron told the podcast that the gambit hinged on a report about foreign interference in the election that John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence at the time, was bound by congressional mandate to present by Dec. 18. If Mr. Ratcliffe pointed a finger at China, accusing Communist Party officials of having manipulated votes in the United States, Mr. Waldron said, Mr. Trump would be within in his rights to declare an emergency and seize some voting machines to conduct a paper recount.

Similar advice was being given to the president by others.

In mid-December last year, for instance, Mr. Flynn appeared on Newsmax, the right-wing television channel, and pushed the president to impose martial law and use the military to “rerun” the election.

In a dramatic meeting in the Oval Office, Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and Mr. Byrne urged Mr. Trump to use an emergency declaration to demand a recount of votes in key states on live TV or have the National Guard redo those states’ elections, Mr. Byrne wrote in his book, “The Deep Rig.”

Mr. Waldron has claimed that he worked under Mr. Flynn at the Defense Intelligence Agency, but the Army declined to comment, saying it could discuss only “releasable” details of Mr. Waldron’s military career. Mr. Flynn did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Another person pushing Mr. Trump to impose martial law was Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia. At a pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington on Dec. 12, Mr. Rhodes and members of his group provided security for Mr. Flynn, who was speaking at the event. Helping the Oath Keepers, Mr. Rhodes said, was a shadowy group of former Special Forces operators called the First Amendment Praetorian. (Their leader, Robert Patrick Lewis, has also been subpoenaed by the House committee.)

During the rally in December, Mr. Rhodes gave a television interview in he which he railed against China and urged Mr. Trump to fight against “traitors” at home. “He should drop the hammer with the Insurrection Act and wage war on the insurrection that’s going on in our country,” Mr. Rhodes said.

In the end, Mr. Ratcliffe did not meet his Dec. 18 deadline to publish the report on foreign interference. Speaking on the podcast, Mr. Waldron blamed Mr. Ratcliffe’s failure on rogue elements in the intelligence community, still loyal to former President Barack Obama, who “actively downplayed the role of China in the elections.”

By that point, Mr. Trump had turned his attention to another matter: a new rally he had scheduled in Washington for Jan. 6, the day that Congress would make its final certification of the electoral vote.

In the run-up to the president’s event, Mr. Waldron was busy. He told The Times this month that on Jan. 4, members of his team spoke to a group of senators about allegations of election fraud contained in the PowerPoint presentation that recommended declaring a national emergency. The next day, Mr. Waldron said, he personally briefed a small group of House members on the same proposal.

One day later, a mob stormed the Capitol. It remains unclear where Mr. Waldron was that day.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,763]

3 hours ago, Red Five said:

All these totally innocent republicans, refusing to assist the investigation into.... an attack on our Capitol. 

Imagine if after 9/11 a shitpot of democrats had been like "Go to hell 9/11 commission! You'll never get me to talk!".

"Um, what?"

This is why you know they and their supporters are completely full of shit.  Innocent people don't act this way.  The politicians are guilty as fuck and their supporters know that, but they don't want to admit it because they actually support it.  They are glad this is happening.  There is no way to defend this.  None.  They KNOW what happened.  We KNOW what happened.  WHY THE FUCK CAN'T WE HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE?!?!

[Sawbonz 27,777]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

(I don't think he'd lose)

Not only would he lose he would probably have to pull out of the general due to health issues. Hell the post nomination campaign might kill him. Obese 77 year olds who live on fast food and amphetamines don’t stand up to the rigors of 20 hour work days

[Willfully Horn 8,091]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

He then called the local sheriff and described the reporter’s car, adding that the reporter was slurring his words and seemed impaired.

This right here is the key to knowing Phil Waldron is a pos.
 

i would also condemn  someone falsely claiming they were at his business and saw him over-serve, or witnessed him serving alcohol to minors.

If he were peddling a true story, a reporter would be a welcome visitor, and the details of how he made his “startling discovery” would be widely known, and not a mystery.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

i would also condemn  someone falsely claiming they were at his business and saw him over-serve, or witnessed him serving alcohol to minors.

I wouldn’t. Dudes a total liar. Fight fire with fire. He probably overserves and serves minors anyway. 

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

Don't get me wrong, it's a bold strategy Cotton for Trump.  To run, for 2+ years on a campaign platform of "This upcoming election that I'm running for is already rigged."  It's the perfect playbook for him. You thought, "Make America Great Again" was vague and ill amplified...wait until it's just "Election is Rigged" is just played over and over again.

"Mr. Trump.  Assuming you still win this rigged election, what would be your first 100 day policy initiatives?"

"Doesn't matter.  It's rigged!"  

"Okay, but assuming the rigging was either undone, or you won anyway.  What would your next term look like?"

"Doesn't matter.  It's rigged!"

"Right.  Let's say that's true.  But you still win.  What domestic issues are most critical to your next administration?"
"Who cares, it's all rigged!"  

It's actually a pretty savvy campaign framework for Commander Dipshit if you think about it.  It appeases/fires up MAGA nation, and is messaging that easily be accommodated in Shithead's brain...or whatever is left of it in 3 years time.  Laugh all you want, it's a decent pivot.

But if he's telling everybody it's rigged, and they believe him, plenty won't bother voting.

Very bold strategy.

Actually, it's brilliant.   He tells everybody it's rigged against him.  MAGA Nation believes him, stays home.  He loses, says it's because it's rigged.  He gets all the sweet campaign cash and the publicity.

Edited December 22, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[Guest Lobo]

And there my interwebs friend, as the Baird said, enlies the Rub.  

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World he ran in 2024.   

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

And there my interwebs friend, as the Baird said, enlies the Rub.  

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the World he ran in 2024.   

is this place where you test your open mic material or something? you don't always have to be 'on'

[Guest Lobo]

yeah, it's totally weird that I would use movie quotes to illustrate a point on surlyhorns.  Just beyond the pale.  The horror.  The horror.  

[atomheartbevo 90,053]

6 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

but i didn't think he'd lose in 2020, but here we are. without a massive effort by stacy abrams in georgia, and some strong campaigning in arizona, it could've easily gone the other way. also, fox being the first to call arizona (!!! still haven't figured that out), massively helped, even though it should not have done so. 

I'm of two minds when it comes to Fox News and how they handled it.  On the one hand, he represented a threat to them of sorts - him potentially making Newsmax or OAN an actual rival to FNC (or a Trump News Channel), and his constant bitching about Fox News, and his threats/motions to take his business to Newsmax or OAN.  It's the same thing with the GOP - they run the risk that he goes all in on a MAGA party because he wants 100% of the money going through his accounts.

On the other hand, Fox News is at its best financially when it's the opposition channel. If we didn't have the Clintons in the '90s, I don't know that we have Rush Limbaugh or Fox News Chanel.  When your guy is in power, and your party controls the House and Senate, you get bored very quickly, and you're not interested in talking heads on Fox News bitching about lefties.  But if your guy is out of power and George Soros controls the House and Senate, you want to tune in and have your views validated.

And I kind of wonder if them calling Arizona early was the Murdoch's sending a signal to Trump and Co., that he doesn't run everything.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

yeah, it's totally weird that I would use movie quotes to illustrate a point on surlyhorns.  Just beyond the pale.  The horror.  The horror.  

never mind. meant no harm. carry on.

[Guest Lobo]

You're just an errand boy, sent by internet clerks to collect on a bill.  

[Biff Tannen 45,763]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

You're just an errand boy, sent by internet clerks to collect on a bill.  

I think you are intentionally using Seinfeld as a way to build up your rep because you know I can't resist.

[Pato del Muerto 52,870]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think you are intentionally using Seinfeld as a way to build up your rep because you know I can't resist.

Seinfeld?

[Guest Lobo]

I've never heard of it.  Frankly it sounds made up.