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

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45621

Posted
Posted

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6911

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

If one is not free to threaten to drag the POTUS down the streets without a visit from the Secret Service, why should this guy be free to threaten other politicians with impunity?

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

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

Well, let's see, here's his indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1367311/download

You are correct that he probably cannot be prosecuted for that speech, alone.  Although, apparently, he is on video at another point wielding weapons and urging others to take up arms, which might not be protected speech on the "imminent lawless conduct" type of thing.

Most of his charges involve "nonexpressive" conduct, rather than "speech," so it's much less of an issue.

For one of the most serious charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, that little tirade shows that he did, in fact, intend to obstruct or interfere with the electoral count.  And this is where a lot of that stuff is heading.

To the extent he attempts to defend any of the "assault-like" counts as self-defense, that probably shows provocation, at the very least, or belies any attempt on his part claiming not to be the aggressor.

 

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

jimmyjazz 45621

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, let's see, here's his indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1367311/download

You are correct that he probably cannot be prosecuted for that speech, alone.  Although, apparently, he is on video at another point wielding weapons and urging others to take up arms, which might not be protected speech on the "imminent lawless conduct" type of thing.

Most of his charges involve "nonexpressive" conduct, rather than "speech," so it's much less of an issue.

For one of the most serious charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, that little tirade shows that he did, in fact, intend to obstruct or interfere with the electoral count.  And this is where a lot of that stuff is heading.

To the extent he attempts to defend any of the "assault-like" counts as self-defense, that probably shows provocation, at the very least, or belies any attempt on his part claiming not to be the aggressor.

 

So my read was reasonably close to the charges.  Not a free speech issue, but evidence of intent to commit ___.

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

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So my read was reasonably close to the charges.  Not a free speech issue, but evidence of intent to commit ___.

Another interesting question might be whether that video is admissible to the jury.  While it probably is, defense counsel will probably try like hell to keep it out if it goes to trial.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52383

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another interesting question might be whether that video is admissible to the jury.  While it probably is, defense counsel will probably try like hell to keep it out if it goes to trial.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

That sounds like suppression of his speech- by the court which is a government entity. 1st amendment!

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45548

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Seriously, fuck Marc Short. You have to see that performance. Unbelievable. Of course it’s really not. He wants to stay in Trump’s favor and is trying so hard not to burn that bridge.

He reminds me of Gollum. 

That rustled my jimmies as well.  What a fuckhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76560

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Seriously, fuck Marc Short. You have to see that performance. Unbelievable. Of course it’s really not. He wants to stay in Trump’s favor and is trying so hard not to burn that bridge.

He reminds me of Gollum. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-marc-short-former-vp-pence-was-crystal-clear-from-day-one-that-he-couldn-t-reject-2020-electors-132551237708

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20354

Posted
Posted

By the time these fuckers are done the insurrectionists will have been peacefully minding their own business handing out cookies and other freshly baked goods to passing tourists when they were suddenly and viciously attacked by the capital police.   Seriously, you don't get to start a fire and then cry that the fire department was negligent in putting it out. 

 

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104778

Posted
Posted
Hillary showed up for questioning at the Benghazi hearings. People with nothing to hide do that.

Well, what you need to realize is that as self-serving and dishonorable as Hillary may be…..she’s 1,000X more honorable, honest, and courageous than the best the current GQP can offer. It’s a terrorist criminal nihilistic death cult, and even knowing that, it still manages to disappoint.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45621

Posted
Posted

Oh look, there appear to be gaps in White House phone records from January 6th.  Surely Republicans will be outraged.  You know, Hillary's emails and all.

#Nixon #18minutes

Curious gaps in Trump's Jan 6 phone activity

 

Quote

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has discovered gaps in official White House telephone logs from the day of the riot, finding few records of calls by President Donald J. Trump from critical hours when investigators know that he was making them.

Spoiler
Feb. 10, 2022, 11:27 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has discovered gaps in official White House telephone logs from the day of the riot, finding few records of calls by President Donald J. Trump from critical hours when investigators know that he was making them.

Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any official records were tampered with or deleted, and it is well known that Mr. Trump used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, routinely to talk with aides, congressional allies and outside confidants.

But the sparse call records are the latest major obstacle to the panel’s central mission: recreating what Mr. Trump was doing behind closed doors during crucial moments of the assault on Congress by a mob of his supporters.

The panel is still awaiting additional material from the National Archives and Records Administration, which keeps the official White House logs, and from telecommunications companies that have been subpoenaed for the personal cellphone records of Mr. Trump’s inner circle, like his son, Eric, and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the fiancée of Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

 
 

The call logs obtained by the committee document who was calling the White House switchboard, and any calls that were being made from the White House to others. Mr. Trump had a habit throughout his presidency of circumventing that system, making it far more difficult to discern who he was communicating with.

Two people familiar with the phone records discussed the details about them on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing an ongoing congressional investigation. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment.

Since the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, former Trump administration officials have said that investigators would struggle to piece together a complete record of Trump’s conversations that day, because of his habit of using his and other people’s cellphones. At least one person who tried to reach Mr. Trump on his cellphone on Jan. 6 had their call picked up by one of his aides. It is unclear where Mr. Trump was at the time.

 

Few details of what Mr. Trump did inside the White House as rioters stormed the Capitol are known. He was watching television as the riot played out on cable news, and several aides including his daughter, Ivanka Trump, implored him to say something to try to tell the rioters to stop.

Nevertheless, his first public communication as the melee unfolded was a Twitter post attacking then-Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Trump also is known to have tried to reach out to one senator as the certification of the Electoral College vote was delayed. And he fielded a call from Representative Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican, who told Mr. Trump that people were breaking into his office on Capitol Hill.

 

Early on in his administration, Mr. Trump was known to use the cellphone belonging to Keith Schiller, his personal body guard at Trump Tower and later the director of Oval Office operations, for some of his calls. It meant the White House call logs were often an incomplete reflection of his contacts.

Latest Developments

Card 1 of 3

A G.O.P. resolution. The Republican National Committee officially declared the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol “legitimate political discourse,” while censuring Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the episode. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, subsequently spoke against the resolution.

The first trial. Prosecutors have provided a revealing glimpse of their strategy for the first trial stemming from the attack on the Capitol, unveiling an inventory of the extensive evidence they intend to introduce.

A high-profile repudiation. At a gathering of conservatives in Florida, former Vice President Mike Pence offered his most forceful rebuke of Donald J. Trump, saying the former president was “wrong” in claiming that Mr. Pence had the authority to overturn the 2020 election.

  •  
  •  
  •  
 

After the Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Trump’s efforts to block the release of hundreds of pages of presidential records, the National Archives turned over to the House panel investigating the riot voluminous documents that included daily presidential diaries, schedules, appointment information showing visitors to the White House, activity logs, call logs, and switchboard shift-change checklists showing calls to Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence on Jan. 6.

The committee has learned in recent weeks that Mr. Trump spoke on the phone with Mr. Pence and Republican lawmakers on the morning of Jan. 6 as he pushed to overturn the election. For instance, Mr. Trump mistakenly called the phone of Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, thinking it was the number of Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama. Mr. Lee then passed the phone to Mr. Tuberville, who said he spoke to the former president for less than 10 minutes as rioters were breaking into the building.

But many of the calls the committee is aware of did not show up in the official logs.

The revelations about incomplete call logs come as Mr. Trump is under increasing scrutiny for apparently violating the Presidential Records Act by ripping up some White House documents and taking others with him when he left office. The House Oversight committee on Thursday announced an investigation into what it called “potential serious violations” of the law, including that Mr. Trump took 15 boxes of White House documents to his Palm Beach, Fla., compound and attempted to destroy presidential records.

Mr. Trump’s conduct, said Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the oversight committee, “involves a former president potentially violating a criminal law by intentionally removing records, including communications with a foreign leader, from the White House and reportedly attempting to destroy records by tearing them up.”

The National Archives and Records Administration discovered what it believed was classified information in documents Mr. Trump had taken with him. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the National Archives had asked the Justice Department to examine Mr. Trump’s handling of White House records.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31349

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2022 at 10:55 AM, Goofyboy said:


It was just 15 boxes of classified momentous. Come on Brisketexan.

For perspective, if you printed out all of Hillary's emails from the unlawful server, I'm guessing 15-20 boxes worth.   That's about 60,000 documents, which is, curiously enough, about what Hillary produced and deleted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54039

Posted
Posted

This is such a huuuuuuuuuuge collection of rubes:

Quote

A federal judge in Santa Ana Monday ruled that former Chapman University law professor John Eastman must show proof he was hired by former President Donald Trump if he wishes to continue asserting claims of attorney-client privilege regarding his emails on the university's server.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter set a schedule for attorneys to file written arguments regarding Eastman's claims of attorney-client privilege that would shield some emails sought by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.


Attorneys for the Jan. 6 select committee filed a motion on Friday saying Eastman has not responded to multiple requests for proof that the law professor was hired by Trump in a capacity that would allow him to assert attorney-client privilege. Without that proof, the committee argues in the motion, Eastman should not be allowed to assert the privilege and prevent the committee members access to the emails from the days leading up to and after the riots.

 

  • Haha 1
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...