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

PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19096

Posted
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/us/politics/biden-trump-white-house-visitor-logs.html

Quote

President Biden is opposing another effort by former President Donald J. Trump to withhold information from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, ordering the National Archives to hand over White House visitor logs the committee is seeking.

In a letter to the National Archives, Mr. Biden’s White House counsel, Dana Remus, said Mr. Biden had rejected Mr. Trump’s claims that the visitor logs were subject to executive privilege and that “in light of the urgency” of the committee’s work, the agency should provide the material to the committee within 15 days.

Mr. Biden had similarly decided last year not to support Mr. Trump’s claim of executive privilege over other batches of White House documents and records sought by the committee. Mr. Trump went to federal court to block the release of those earlier batches but lost.

Citing in part the same reasoning as in the earlier case, Ms. Remus told the National Archives that the documents needed to be disclosed in a timely fashion because “Congress has a compelling need.” She said that “constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.”

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump will go to court again in an attempt to block or slow the release of the visitor logs.

The White House sent the letter to David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, on Tuesday, and planned to inform Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Wednesday morning. The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter.

It is not clear what the visitor logs might show or how extensive and complete they are. In the letter, Ms. Remus said the records in this case “are entries in visitor logs showing appointment information for individuals who were processed to enter the White House complex, including on Jan. 6, 2021.”

Under Mr. Biden and under President Barack Obama, the White House has made its visitor logs public, a move that proponents of government transparency have long said gives the public a greater sense of who has a direct pipeline to the country’s most powerful officials.

But the Trump administration said in April 2017 that such logs should remain secret because of “the grave national security risks and privacy concerns of the hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.” Barring their disclosure made it far harder to determine which donors, lobbyists and activists had access to Mr. Trump and aides.

In her letter to the National Archives, Ms. Remus pointed out that “the majority of the entries over which the former president has asserted executive privilege would be publicly released under” Mr. Biden’s policy.

 

Committee investigators have made some progress in recent weeks putting together a better portrait of what Mr. Trump was doing inside the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, and who visited with him. In doing so, they have relied in part on lower-level staff members and Trump White House documents. Mr. Trump watched the protests from the West Wing on television, and according to letters released by the committee, initially refused pleas from aides to intervene to stop the crowd.

Through testimony, the committee has learned that White House aides asked one of Mr. Trump’s daughters, Ivanka, “to intervene in an attempt to persuade President Trump to address the ongoing lawlessness and violence on Capitol Hill,” according to a letter the committee sent Ms. Trump last month requesting she sit for questioning.

The committee has also been looking more broadly at the efforts undertaken by Mr. Trump and his aides and advisers in the months after Election Day to stave off his defeat, and full access to the visitor logs could provide the committee with further information about who was in the White House during that period.

Many members of the circle of outside advisers who had Mr. Trump’s ear after Election Day spent considerable time at the White House in the days and weeks leading up to the attacks. They include figures like his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was helping lead the push to challenge the results; the conservative lawyer John Eastman, who was making a case that Vice President Mike Pence could derail congressional certification of the Electoral College results; and the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who was pursuing baseless theories about voting fraud and manipulation of the results.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45545

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

“It is unclear whether Mr. Trump will go to court again in an attempt to block or slow the release of the visitor logs.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that he will. 

I really don't understand how we have this seemingly endless appeal system.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31348

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't understand how we have this seemingly endless appeal system.  

It's not an appeal.  It's a different set of documents, so it is, at least in theory, a different case than the one over the prior documents.

But, Trump is going to have to make a compelling showing why these documents should be treated any differently than the last batch, which he will not be able to do.  So he's going to get dumped out on his ass.

Given that the precedent is already set, while the first case took about 12 weeks to resolve, this one is going to take maybe six, including denial of cert by the Supreme Court.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6910

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Dr. Ronny Jackson did all this before voting against certifying the election:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10489961/Rep-Ronny-Jackson-broke-furniture-confront-Capitol-rioters.html

  • GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson broke up furniture in an effort to defend the House chamber on January 6, according to Jeremy Peters' new book, Insurgency
  • Jackson and two other GOP lawmakers 'broke legs off chairs to use as clubs and ripped the base off a hand sanitizer dispenser stand to wield as a baton' 
  • 'They picked up whatever furniture that wasn't bolted down - desks, cabinets, chairs - and piled it up in front of the doors,' the book said 
  • Jackson took off his necktie as rioters approached thinking: 'it was best not to give them something to strangle you with' 
  • Peters' book provided new details about the events on January 6, including what happened to one of former President Donald Trump's top allies 
  • After the attack, Jackson went on to vote against the election results in Pennsylvania prolonging the joint session of Congress to count Electoral votes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28726

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Dr. Ronny Jackson did all this before voting against certifying the election:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10489961/Rep-Ronny-Jackson-broke-furniture-confront-Capitol-rioters.html

  • GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson broke up furniture in an effort to defend the House chamber on January 6, according to Jeremy Peters' new book, Insurgency
  • Jackson and two other GOP lawmakers 'broke legs off chairs to use as clubs and ripped the base off a hand sanitizer dispenser stand to wield as a baton' 
  • 'They picked up whatever furniture that wasn't bolted down - desks, cabinets, chairs - and piled it up in front of the doors,' the book said 
  • Jackson took off his necktie as rioters approached thinking: 'it was best not to give them something to strangle you with' 
  • Peters' book provided new details about the events on January 6, including what happened to one of former President Donald Trump's top allies 
  • After the attack, Jackson went on to vote against the election results in Pennsylvania prolonging the joint session of Congress to count Electoral votes

They fear for their actual lives scarcely more than they do for their political lives. I wonder if any of them actually said a prayer while the insurrectionists were coming to get them, “Lord, save me from this and I swear I’ll never again support Donald Trump,” before reneging on that promise as soon as the threat was over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6910

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They fear for their actual lives scarcely more than they do for their political lives. I wonder if any of them actually said a prayer while the insurrectionists were coming to get them, “Lord, save me from this and I swear I’ll never again support Donald Trump,” before reneging on that promise as soon as the threat was over.

I’m sure there was some of that. I laugh and sneer at Jackson removing his tie for fear of being strangled to death by Trump supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33853

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Satchel said:

Dr. Ronny Jackson did all this before voting against certifying the election:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10489961/Rep-Ronny-Jackson-broke-furniture-confront-Capitol-rioters.html

  • GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson broke up furniture in an effort to defend the House chamber on January 6, according to Jeremy Peters' new book, Insurgency
  • Jackson and two other GOP lawmakers 'broke legs off chairs to use as clubs and ripped the base off a hand sanitizer dispenser stand to wield as a baton' 
  • 'They picked up whatever furniture that wasn't bolted down - desks, cabinets, chairs - and piled it up in front of the doors,' the book said 
  • Jackson took off his necktie as rioters approached thinking: 'it was best not to give them something to strangle you with' 
  • Peters' book provided new details about the events on January 6, including what happened to one of former President Donald Trump's top allies 
  • After the attack, Jackson went on to vote against the election results in Pennsylvania prolonging the joint session of Congress to count Electoral votes

did I miss something or is this the first reference to multiple gunshots? is that a typo on the video caption? I don't have audio atm so I can't listen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16875

Posted
Posted
On 2/12/2022 at 11:50 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

The Russians have all of Hillary’s deleted emails. If there was anything incriminating there, we’d know about it. 

I am sure they have everything of Trumps as well.  The idiot let them into the White House.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13419

Posted
Posted
On 2/16/2022 at 8:19 AM, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't understand how we have this seemingly endless appeal system.  

The committee and Justice dept need to set up trump in a no-refusal-weekend type of scenario. “You want to appeal? We have a judge sitting right here to listen to your arguments. You have 5 minutes, starting now.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28726

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I am sure they have everything of Trumps as well.  The idiot let them into the White House.  

Trump cleverly doesn’t use email. He gets things on paper but doesn’t read it himself. He has someone read it to him. Sometimes he tears it up and throws it on the floor, sometimes he eats it, sometimes he tries to flush it down the toilet. Whatever is left he takes with him back to Mar-a-Lago where, I’m sure, it’s protected by the tightest security.

But yeah, they know everything. He carries his own cell phone which I’m sure has been compromised not only by the Russians but also by the Chinese, the N. Koreans, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Indians, the Australians, the Brits, the French, the Germans, and pretty much every other intelligence agency in the world. And Trump openly shared Top Secret intelligence with the Russians so how much spying was really necessary? Just in case, Putin gave Trump a bugged soccer ball as a gift In Helsinki.

Di-AfhEU4AAkNfK?format=jpg&name=medium

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheStoicPaisano

TheStoicPaisano 9905

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

she kinda reminds me of that woman suit that Quaid was wearing to try to evade capture in Total Recall. Except that the suit had been dieting and was getting it's life back on track, but then joined an insurrection. something like that

Spoiler

 

 

F6BD84F7-EA5B-4943-B9FC-FBB5BDF155E8.jpeg
bad time for spoiler no workee. Or perhaps user error, sorry!

Edited by TheStoicPaisano
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29300

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

she kinda reminds me of that woman suit that Quaid was wearing to try to evade capture in Total Recall. Except that the suit had been dieting and was getting it's life back on track, but then joined an insurrection. something like that

Holy shit was this ever accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27508

Posted
Posted

A law clerk repeatedly had to tell Trump's lawyer to stop interrupting the judge while she ranted about political bias and right-wing conspiracy theories

The coordination of messaging from Trump lawyers to message board chuds is remarkable. The same narrative of "Hillary spied on trump!" is being splattered across the judiciary and being echoed by all the resident red hats 

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

DDD Dad 14272

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So they're not even considering the case?  Can it get dumped to a lower court?

matthew-broderick-its-over-go-home.gif

No direct right to consideration of the merits (it's not like an appeal of a judgment to the circuit courts of appeals).  Nearly all of the cases the SCOTUS considers are based on its discretionary review jurisdiction (e.g., certiorari power).  There are a few limited cases in which the court is obligated to rule (IIRC) like disputes between states (but that's actually original jurisdiction rather than appellate)  Off the top of my head I can't think of a single basis of mandatory appellate jurisdiction. 

So, to answer your question, there was not a sufficient number of justices voting in favor to consider the merits of the case.  So they considered considering it, but declined.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45620

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So, to answer your question, there was not a sufficient number of justices voting in favor to consider the merits of the case.  So they considered considering it, but declined.

Considering the makeup of the current court, that seems somewhat . . . damning.

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

Willfully Horn 7942

Posted
Posted
On 2/17/2022 at 6:28 PM, Satchel said:

Dr. Ronny Jackson did all this before voting against certifying the election:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10489961/Rep-Ronny-Jackson-broke-furniture-confront-Capitol-rioters.html

  • GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson broke up furniture in an effort to defend the House chamber on January 6, according to Jeremy Peters' new book, Insurgency
  • Jackson and two other GOP lawmakers 'broke legs off chairs to use as clubs and ripped the base off a hand sanitizer dispenser stand to wield as a baton' 
  • 'They picked up whatever furniture that wasn't bolted down - desks, cabinets, chairs - and piled it up in front of the doors,' the book said 
  • Jackson took off his necktie as rioters approached thinking: 'it was best not to give them something to strangle you with' 
  • Peters' book provided new details about the events on January 6, including what happened to one of former President Donald Trump's top allies 
  • After the attack, Jackson went on to vote against the election results in Pennsylvania prolonging the joint session of Congress to count Electoral votes

Party of bootlickers, lickspittles, and cheek spreaders. No spine. No character. No morality. 

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

Captainant 27508

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Party of bootlickers, lickspittles, and cheek spreaders. No spine. No character. No morality. 

There were multiple reports in which Ronny Jackson was referred to as the "Candyman" for giving out opioids like crazy and drinking on the job. Of course he's got no spine character or morality. He's a charlatan 

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

TwiceHorn 31348

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2022 at 10:48 AM, DDD Dad said:

matthew-broderick-its-over-go-home.gif

No direct right to consideration of the merits (it's not like an appeal of a judgment to the circuit courts of appeals).  Nearly all of the cases the SCOTUS considers are based on its discretionary review jurisdiction (e.g., certiorari power).  There are a few limited cases in which the court is obligated to rule (IIRC) like disputes between states (but that's actually original jurisdiction rather than appellate)  Off the top of my head I can't think of a single basis of mandatory appellate jurisdiction. 

So, to answer your question, there was not a sufficient number of justices voting in favor to consider the merits of the case.  So they considered considering it, but declined.

To elaborate, the district court's decision was not a "final" decision, but a decision on a preliminary injunction against the Archives from delivering up the documents to the Committee.  That decision did contain an evaluation of Trump's argument regarding privilege, but the case remained pending in the district court for a full trial and decision "on the merits."  But, the cat was about to be let out of the bag, rendering subsequent proceedings essentially moot.

Because the district court's order granted or denied (denied) injunctive relief, it was immediately appealable to the DC Circuit, which affirmed the district court on the denial of the injunction.

Trump then took it up to the Supreme Court asking that they enjoin delivery of the documents while the petition for certiorari (to consider the ruling more fully_ was pending.  The Supreme Court denied that injunction, basically agreeing with the DC Circuit and district court.  Classic "shadow docket" stuff.

But the cert petition remained pending.  And was just now denied, in no small part because the "cat was out of the bag" due to the prior rulings.  In theory, at least, the case returns to the district court for further proceedings.  But, the documents have been released, the cat is out of the bag, and there likely will be no further proceedings.

These kinds of cases, where the main relief is injunctive, that is, an order to do or not do something in the short term, are always going to "evade" full review "on the merits" via petition for certiorari because there is rarely anything left to fight about after the injunction is granted or denied.

  • Hook 'Em 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...