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

NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5106

Posted
Posted

Do not ever again talk about how important your religion is to you as you use it to justify throwing my people in jail, fining and jailing women who want to control their own bodies, and the mass slaughter of the innocent.  With that statement you have told me that you don't even follow the tenets of your religion.  FUCK YOU.  

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29473

Posted
Posted

Before Jan. 6, Aide Warned Secret Service of Security Risk to Pence
New details flesh out how the pressure campaign by Donald J. Trump and his allies to block certification of the 2020 election left the vice president’s staff fearing for his safety.

The day before a mob of President Donald J. Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff called Mr. Pence’s lead Secret Service agent to his West Wing office.

The chief of staff, Marc Short, had a message for the agent, Tim Giebels: The president was going to turn publicly against the vice president, and there could be a security risk to Mr. Pence because of it.

The stark warning — the only time Mr. Short flagged a security concern during his tenure as Mr. Pence’s top aide — was uncovered recently during research by this reporter for an upcoming book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” to be published in October.

Mr. Short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events. But after days of intensifying pressure from Mr. Trump on Mr. Pence to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the Electoral College count to forestall Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. Short seemed to have good reason for concern. The vice president’s refusal to go along was exploding into an open and bitter breach between the two men at a time when the president was stoking the fury of his supporters who were streaming into Washington.

Spoiler

Mr. Short’s previously unreported warning reflected the remarkable tension in the West Wing as Mr. Trump and a band of allies, with the clock running out, searched desperately for a means of overturning the election. Mr. Trump grew agitated as his options closed, and it became clear that he was failing in his last-ditch effort to muscle his previously compliant vice president into unilaterally rejecting the voting outcomes in key states.

The warning also shows the concern at the highest levels of the government about the danger that Mr. Trump’s anticipated actions and words might lead to violence on Jan. 6.

It is unclear what, if anything, Mr. Giebels did with the warning. But as Mr. Trump attacked his second in command — and democratic norms — in an effort to cling to power, it would prove prophetic.

A day after Mr. Short’s warning, more than 2,000 people — some chanting “Hang Mike Pence” — stormed the Capitol as the vice president was overseeing the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Outside, angry Trump supporters had erected a mock gallows. After Mr. Pence was hustled to safety, Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, is reported to have told colleagues that Mr. Trump said that perhaps Mr. Pence should have been hanged.

New details from the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 help to flesh out how Mr. Trump and his allies sought to intimidate Mr. Pence into accepting their baseless theory that the vice president had the authority to block congressional certification of the Electoral College results — and how Mr. Pence’s refusal to do so would lead him to peril.

A spokeswoman for the Secret Service did not respond to an email seeking comment. A spokesman for Mr. Pence declined to comment.

Mr. Pence said about five months after the Capitol attack, “There is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

A few weeks after Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020, aides to Mr. Pence learned that some in Mr. Trump’s loose network of advisers were discussing the possibility of Jan. 6, 2021 — set under statute as the day of the Electoral College certification — as a potentially critical date in Mr. Trump’s efforts to stay in power. Soon, Mr. Pence asked his general counsel, Greg Jacob, to write a memo explaining what his powers were during the certification.

The memo did not take a clear position, but Mr. Pence’s advisers continued to research the issue, ultimately concluding that the vice president had no authority to dictate the outcome.

But Mr. Pence and his team were faced with regular pressure from a cast of Trump supporters arguing that he did have such power.

At the end of December, Mr. Pence traveled to Vail, Colo., for a family vacation. While he was there, his aides received a request for him to meet with Sidney Powell, a lawyer who promoted some of the more far-fetched conspiracy theories about flaws in voting machines, and whom Mr. Trump wanted to bring into the White House, ostensibly to investigate his false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The request to meet with Ms. Powell was relayed through Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Ms. Ward had joined a suit filed by Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, that asked a court to say that Mr. Pence could decide whether to accept or reject slates of electors from states during the Electoral College certification.

The suit was asserting precisely what Mr. Pence’s aides argued he did not have the power to do. Some Pence advisers were suspicious that Ms. Powell wanted to serve the vice president with legal papers related to the case.

Mr. Short objected to Ms. Ward’s support of the suit. She relayed to him that they would not pursue it if Mr. Trump was uneasy with it. (The proposed meeting with Ms. Powell never happened.) Ms. Powell and a spokesman for Ms. Ward did not respond to emails seeking comment.

There were other points of friction that left the Pence team on high alert about the pressure campaign. Mr. Meadows told Mr. Short that the president was withholding approval of a pot of transition funding for Mr. Pence to establish a post-White House office.

Amid the rising tension, Mr. Short reached out between Christmas and New Year’s Day to Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, asking how he could defuse what was becoming an untenable clash between the Pence and Trump camps. Mr. Kushner deflected the outreach, saying he was wrapped up in negotiations in the Middle East.

At one point, John McEntee, the head of presidential personnel, wrote a handwritten note that circulated in the West Wing that seemed to acknowledge that Mr. Pence did not think he could influence the outcome of the election.

Yet with Mr. Trump failing in his other efforts to reverse the results, Mr. Pence continued to receive unsolicited memos arguing that he had the power to block certification — including one from Mr. McEntee that looked far back into American history to find precedent: “JEFFERSON USED HIS POSITION AS VP TO WIN.”

Mr. Trump also persisted, soon trying more direct means of pressuring Mr. Pence. On Jan. 4, 2021, he summoned the vice president to meet with John Eastman, the lawyer who had been especially influential in pressing the case that the vice president could intervene. During the meeting, Mr. Eastman appeared to acknowledge that Mr. Pence did not have the power to arbitrarily settle the election. Still, he maintained that the vice president could send the results back to states to re-evaluate the results over a 10-day recess.

By early January, Mr. Pence made clear to Mr. Trump that he did not believe he had the power to do what the president wanted, but he also indicated that he would keep studying the issue.

Mr. Trump tweeted on the morning of Jan. 5 that Mr. Pence could reject electors. He had tried to persuade some of his informal advisers outside the White House to go to the Naval Observatory, the vice president’s official residence, to seek an audience to pressure Mr. Pence. That day, Mr. Trump spoke with Mr. Pence again, pressing him to do what the vice president said he could not.

It was that day that Mr. Short called Mr. Giebels to his office.

The next day, Jan. 6, Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman addressed a crowd of thousands of Trump supporters at a rally at the Ellipse near the White House, before the start of the Electoral College certification at 1 p.m. Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman both applied public pressure on Mr. Pence to do what they wanted.

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness,” Mr. Trump told his supporters. At another point, he said: “Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories.”

Mr. Trump, who repeatedly told aides he wanted to march to the Capitol as the certification was beginning, told the crowd that he would do so. But the Secret Service told him they could not protect him, and he returned to the White House.

At about 1 p.m., Mr. Pence released a memo making clear that he disagreed with the president about his power to intervene in the certification. The memo was not shared with the White House counsel in advance; the trust between the offices was shattered by then.

Soon, Mr. Trump’s supporters swarmed the Capitol, breaking in through doors and windows and disrupting the count.

Mr. Giebels rushed Mr. Pence from the Senate chamber and took him to an underground loading dock. The vice president refused to get in a waiting car, despite Mr. Giebels’s repeated urging, believing it would let the rioters and others score a victory against a core democratic process, his aides have said.

Mr. Pence stayed there for hours, until it was safe to return to the Senate chamber, where he insisted on finishing the certification process.

His post-White House transition funding was approved soon after Jan. 6.

 

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

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20354

Posted
Posted

From the New York Times:  the day before the attack on the Capitol, Mike Pence's chief of staff warned the head of Pence's Secret Service detail that Donald Trump was about to turn on Pence, endangering him.


 


"The chief of staff, Marc Short, had a message for the agent, Tim Giebels: The president was going to turn publicly against the vice president, and there could be a security risk to Mr. Pence because of it.

The stark warning — the only time Mr. Short flagged a security concern during his tenure as Mr. Pence’s top aide — was uncovered recently during research by this reporter for an upcoming book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” to be published in October.

Mr. Short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events. But after days of intensifying pressure from Mr. Trump on Mr. Pence to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the Electoral College count to forestall Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. Short seemed to have good reason for concern." 




https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/us/politics/trump-pence-safety-jan-6.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Updawg

Updawg 2262

Posted
Posted
From the New York Times:  the day before the attack on the Capitol, Mike Pence's chief of staff warned the head of Pence's Secret Service detail that Donald Trump was about to turn on Pence, endangering him.


 


"The chief of staff, Marc Short, had a message for the agent, Tim Giebels: The president was going to turn publicly against the vice president, and there could be a security risk to Mr. Pence because of it.

The stark warning — the only time Mr. Short flagged a security concern during his tenure as Mr. Pence’s top aide — was uncovered recently during research by this reporter for an upcoming book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” to be published in October.

Mr. Short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events. But after days of intensifying pressure from Mr. Trump on Mr. Pence to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the Electoral College count to forestall Mr. Trump’s defeat, Mr. Short seemed to have good reason for concern." 




https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/us/politics/trump-pence-safety-jan-6.html

That’s crazy but the whole thing is

Good for those people doing their jobs. The stories in 20 years will be interesting once it all comes out

It’s amazing how close we came to an insurrection/coup
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7539

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Updawg said:


That’s crazy but the whole thing is

Good for those people doing their jobs. The stories in 20 years will be interesting once it all comes out

It’s amazing how close we came to an insurrection/coup

Trump staged an insurrection/coup, it just temporarily failed. They are now regrouping for a second try. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31348

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

JFC. Play hardball, goddamnit. This is serious business.

Here’s your link:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/03/doj-declines-to-charge-meadows-scavino-with-contempt-of-congress-for-defying-jan-6-committee-00037230

I'm not surprised.  Apparently a combination of the strength of the executive privilege claim, as actual White House officials and partial compliance with the subpoenas.

It's really not that big a deal.  Prosecuting them for contempt wouldn't have secured their testimony.  And, they would have either lied, "forgotten," or invoked executive privilege against any juicy questions.

Now subpoena them to a grand jury.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28725

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not surprised.  Apparently a combination of the strength of the executive privilege claim, as actual White House officials and partial compliance with the subpoenas.

It's really not that big a deal.  Prosecuting them for contempt wouldn't have secured their testimony.  And, they would have either lied, "forgotten," or invoked executive privilege against any juicy questions.

Now subpoena them to a grand jury.

I believe my pessimism is going to win out over your optimism. I hope I’m wrong. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6568

Posted
Posted




That’s crazy but the whole thing is

Good for those people doing their jobs. The stories in 20 years will be interesting once it all comes out

It’s amazing how close we came to an insurrection/coup


I like your optimism that we will have "stories" in 20 years or any form of history that is not unbiased propaganda. That would be nice, to allow academia to do thier job unfettered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45536

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Updawg said:


That’s crazy but the whole thing is

Good for those people doing their jobs. The stories in 20 years will be interesting once it all comes out

It’s amazing how close we came to an insurrection/coup

You say this like it’s over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31348

Posted
Posted (edited)

I rather doubt that Merrick Garland made the decision.  I'm sure he had input on it, but probably left it up to the USADC who would actually have to try the cases.  I have a hard time arguing with declining to bring "unwinnable' misdemeanor cases just to try to make a point or to be "hardcore."

I am seeing some speculation here and there that the public hearings are driving the DOJ toward criminal indictments for the high end players, the thought being that the public may be so outraged as to make the time right to do it.  I suppose that could be correct.

I tend to think of it as the DOJ had to swallow the pig of some 800 low- and mid-level perps and concurrently do their usual "investigation by indictment and cooperation" deal to bring them to this point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
abuelo gringo

abuelo gringo 321

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I rather doubt that Merrick Garland made the decision.  I'm sure he had input on it, but probably left it up to the USADC who would actually have to try the cases.  I have a hard time arguing with declining to bring "unwinnable' misdemeanor cases just to try to make a point or to be "hardcore."

I am seeing some speculation here and there that the public hearings are driving the DOJ toward criminal indictments for the high end players, the thought being that the public may be so outraged as to make the time right to do it.  I suppose that could be correct.

I tend to think of it as the DOJ had to swallow the pig of some 800 low- and mid-level perps and concurrently do their usual "investigation by indictment and cooperation" deal to bring them to this point.

And they even have a strategy for when any criminal cases do get filed and tried:

 

Quote

Jury says it's deadlocked in 'We Build The Wall' fraud trial

Eleven jurors accused one juror of political bias before saying they were deadlocked in deliberating the fate of a Colorado businessman accused of defrauding investors in a wall along the U.S. southern border

ByLarry Neumeister Associated Press
June 02, 2022, 5:07 PM
 
 
 

NEW YORK -- A jury said it was deadlocked Thursday in its deliberations of charges against a Colorado businessman accused of defrauding thousands of investors in a wall along the southern U.S. border hours after 11 jurors turned against one juror, accusing him of “political bias” and saying he'd labeled the rest of them liberals.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rejected a defense request to declare a mistrial and instead read a so-called “Allen charge,” designed to spark productive deliberations Friday in the trial of Timothy Shea. Jurors were then sent home.

The original four defendants in the case included Steve Bannon, an adviser to ex-President Donald Trump who was pardoned by Trump early last year. Two others pleaded guilty to charges.

The prosecution pertained to a “We Build The Wall” campaign that raised about $25 million for a wall. Only a few miles of wall were built. Prosecutors said Shea and other fund organizers promised investors that all donations would fund a wall, but Shea and others eventually siphoned away hundreds of thousands of dollars for themselves.

Shea, of Castle Rock, Colorado, owns an energy drink company, Winning Energy, whose cans have featured a cartoon superhero image of Trump and claim to contain “12 oz. of liberal tears.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19164

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am seeing some speculation here and there that the public hearings are driving the DOJ toward criminal indictments for the high end players, the thought being that the public may be so outraged as to make the time right to do it.  I suppose that could be correct.

Roger Stone is currently recruiting loner incels and training them up on gun shit.  There’s going to be a mass shooting every day during the public hearings, each more horrific than the previous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33853

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


“They treated me like any ol’ drunk off the street. I just don’t know why.”

I guess it's really hard for some of these Trumpkins to understand that the law would apply equally to them.

 

Mr Navarro, are you in fact drunk right now?

That has nothing to do with anything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19028

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

The logic I've heard about the delay in arresting Meadows is he might still turn, but once he's under arrest he's gone as far as being a potential collaborator with the government goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45536

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, abuelo gringo said:

And they even have a strategy for when any criminal cases do get filed and tried:

 

 

Yeah this is a fucking problem. When 30% of the country is insane, odds of getting one or more of them on a jury is very good. We are in fucking trouble. 

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

Upgrayedd 5806

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah this is a fucking problem. When 30% of the country is insane, odds of getting one or more of them on a jury is very good. We are in fucking trouble. 

At least 30% of the county has always been  insane.  Since day one.

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

Biff Tannen 45536

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

At least 30% of the county has always been  insane.  Since day one.

That’s fine, but that 30% wasn’t always beholden to the whim of a charlatan that feeds them hate and fear of normal people and the common good of society. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
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...