Jump to content

The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

Satchel

By Satchel
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Genco
Genco
brakeman
brakeman
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Just to be clear, an official of the United States government AND a licensed attorney.....just asserted to Congress that his actions in assisting the Trump administration with respect to the admin's a

Posted Images

  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104778

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

guess this goes here?

I think what he meant to say is, "It should have been a bloodbath but we were told not to fire on them."

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

  • Hook 'Em 13
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33853

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

he deserves way more than a statue. he should get the Prince Akeem royal bath every day for the rest of his life. and more...

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

I think I mentioned it on this thread or elsewhere, but when you, I, and normal people assert a privilege in court, we just can't say "neener, it's privileged."  We have to make a privilege log identifying each document by date, sender, recipient, and general subject matter so the opponent can evaluate the assertion of privilege.  It can be a royal pain in the ass.  Cohen had to do it when his office was raided.

This is normal, and what all these chucklefucks should be forced to do with respect to documents.  And they should be compelled to testify and assert executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.  

That these guys have all said "neener, neener, it's privileged" basically means they should go to jail for contempt of congress.

in this particular instance, Eastman alleges that many or most of the documents and emails are attorney-client privileged communications with Trump and his minions in connection with his representation of Trump or his entities.  He can't get away with this "neener, it's privileged" shit.

Also, this judge rapidly dispensed with claims that the Committee doesn't have a valid legislative purpose or is improperly constituted, which is another bullshit claim of these assholes.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27510

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89499

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think I mentioned it on this thread or elsewhere, but when you, I, and normal people assert a privilege in court, we just can't say "neener, it's privileged."  We have to make a privilege log identifying each document by date, sender, recipient, and general subject matter so the opponent can evaluate the assertion of privilege.  It can be a royal pain in the ass.  Cohen had to do it when his office was raided.

......

in this particular instance, Eastman alleges that many or most of the documents and emails are attorney-client privileged communications with Trump and his minions in connection with his representation of Trump or his entities.  He can't get away with this "neener, it's privileged" shit.

I love that he's claiming that, while using a 3rd-party's email servers, that he did not own or control in any way, and that had nothing to do with whatever legal practice he might claim to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25903

Posted
Posted
the result set for "fake electors" is improving in the last 48 hours
the guardian piece makes clear the chapman servers could = watergate tapes
thanks orange man!

When you say “orange man“, do you mean the guy with the orange spray tan, or do you mean the dipshit that was doing shit over the servers that are located in Orange, CA?

Inquiring minds want to know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/27/2022 at 9:12 PM, atomheartbevo said:

I love that he's claiming that, while using a 3rd-party's email servers, that he did not own or control in any way, and that had nothing to do with whatever legal practice he might claim to have.

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89499

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

I should have clarified - it's not simply the use of third-party servers, given that many law firms use outside services, it's that he didn't have permission to use the third-party servers in the manner in which he did, and Chapman specifically had a policy against what he was doing.  He would have acknowledged/accepted that policy when his account was created.  I'm sure that he, like the rest of us, skipped over the TOS when his account was being created, but there would have been something in there where he acknowledged their usage policies. And the idea of him claiming to have not read the TOS and just signing off on it is amusing.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

If it's the university I'm thinking of, it's focused on research, which means they probably have a whole lot of policies revolving around privacy, etc., but yeah, they barred the use of it for political purposes, so I don't see how he has any kind of privilege claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I should have clarified - it's not simply the use of third-party servers, given that many law firms use outside services, it's that he didn't have permission to use the third-party servers in the manner in which he did, and Chapman specifically had a policy against what he was doing.  He would have acknowledged/accepted that policy when his account was created.  I'm sure that he, like the rest of us, skipped over the TOS when his account was being created, but there would have been something in there where he acknowledged their usage policies. And the idea of him claiming to have not read the TOS and just signing off on it is amusing.

If it's the university I'm thinking of, it's focused on research, which means they probably have a whole lot of policies revolving around privacy, etc., but yeah, they barred the use of it for political purposes, so I don't see how he has any kind of privilege claims.

Right.  I just wanted to clear up any misconception that attorney-client privilege goes away just by using a third-party server.  In most cases, you have the requisite expectation of privacy.  In some circumstances, you may not.

It hasn't come to the point of waiver of privilege, even though Chapman was kind of arguing in that direction.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19164

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

So is dotard proper fucked or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure what if any criminal charges can result against these "plotters."

But, I think there's going to be massive evidence of a "plot," part of which relied on delaying the electoral count, and/or browbeating Pence into doing something.  All of which Trump was privy to and subscribed to and wanted to happen.

And that gives him a very solid and credible motive or intent for the 1/6 speech to incite obstruction of the electoral count.

Without this evidence, he can claim it was just another one of his stupid rallies that people overreacted to.  And, whether a jury believes that or not, it is probably enough to create reasonable doubt.  I think this kind of evidence helps close that gap.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104778

Posted
Posted
FKY4QCkXsAImrTq?format=jpg&name=small
 
Here he is saying the quiet part loud.
.
 

And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7945

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

Cross board post:

On 12/10/2021 at 4:23 PM, Johnny Sack said:

You don't ever admit to the existence of this thing of ours.


From the mafia BUFFS thread. Criminal cons are criminal.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

I like it, too, that Trump speaks in terms of Pence's "right" to change the election outcome.  It's not a right, it would be a power or ability.

Trump has a really infirm grasp of rights, duties, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27510

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I like it, too, that Trump speaks in terms of Pence's "right" to change the election outcome.  It's not a right, it would be a power or ability.

Trump has a really infirm grasp of rights, duties, etc.

Authoritarians and fascists view the government not as a mechanism to execute policy and serve the people, but as a weapon to wield against their enemies. If you simply expect trump and the GQP to act along those lines, you will rarely be surprised. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12945

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's profoundly disturbing to think that a significant faction of Americans buy into the idea that one man -- the VP -- has the authority to determine the next President of the United States.

Well,  one man could pardon anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52383

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's profoundly disturbing to think that a significant faction of Americans buy into the idea that one man -- the VP -- has the authority to determine the next President of the United States.

Maybe it’s time to get rid of all the stupid pomp and circumstance over having actual human electors that have to record an actual vote, which then has to be counted off and accepted in congress. It’s pageantry. We know how many EV each state is worth, so once they certify their state vote totals just add that shit up and move forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33853

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe it’s time to get rid of all the stupid pomp and circumstance over having actual human electors that have to record an actual vote, which then has to be counted off and accepted in congress. It’s pageantry. We know how many EV each state is worth, so once they certify their state vote totals just add that shit up and move forward. 

not sure if serious, but this sounds terrible. also, the electoral college can get straight fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16875

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

The oligarch have always have been working on that goal and attacking the institution from multiple angles for a long fucking time.   Voter suppression.  Gerrymandering.  And now ignoring the will (votes) of the people and outright stealing elections (S. Abrams).   We are too broke to care and not broke enough to starve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45621

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Going back to the pipe bomb thing.  It's quite clear from the video that it was a woman.  I'd put even money that it was either MTG or Boobert.  Have they been subpoenaed yet?  Think they have a solid alibi for their whereabouts on Jan 5?

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54039

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

This time 4 years ago, I couldn't fathom someone like Bobo or MTG being elected to Congress.  Nope, can't buy into that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Yeah, even at the 2018 midterms, I couldn't see a MTG or Boebert being elected.  That's a debate I couldn't even reasonably entertain.  

And now, just a hair over 3 years later...I'm honestly entertaining the idea that not only is MTG in Congress, but an incredible visible member of a party I used to engage with, and possibly an armchair pipe bomber.  It doesn't even weird me out to type it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...