A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,441
5,559
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Oh boo hoo. Facts don't care about your feelings.




 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,867
987
118
Country
United States
Oh boo hoo. Facts don't care about your feelings.




How dare there be consequences for my actions?
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
2,202
2,097
118
Britannialand
This isn't the only concern with the still-politically-active-and-influential trump fash grabs, there are more current tactics being deployed to discuss or helplessly point at with extreme anxiety other than this investigation...


WASHINGTON — Even by the standards of President Donald J. Trump, it was an extraordinary Oval Office showdown. On the agenda was Mr. Trump’s desire to install a loyalist as acting attorney general to carry out his demands for more aggressive investigations into his unfounded claims of election fraud.

On the other side during that meeting on the evening of Jan. 3 were the top leaders of the Justice Department, who warned Mr. Trump that they and other senior officials would resign en masse if he followed through. They received immediate support from another key participant: Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. According to others at the meeting, Mr. Cipollone indicated that he and his top deputy, Patrick F. Philbin, would also step down if Mr. Trump acted on his plan.

Mr. Trump’s proposed plan, Mr. Cipollone argued, would be a “murder-suicide pact,” one participant recalled. Only near the end of the nearly three-hour meeting did Mr. Trump relent and agree to drop his threat.

Mr. Cipollone’s stand that night is among the new details contained in a lengthy interim report prepared by the Senate Judiciary Committee about Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department to do his bidding in the chaotic final weeks of his presidency.

The report draws on documents, emails and testimony from three top Justice Department officials, including the acting attorney general for Mr. Trump’s last month in office, Jeffrey A. Rosen; the acting deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, and Byung J. Pak, who until early January was U.S. attorney in Atlanta. It provides the most complete account yet of Mr. Trump’s efforts to push the department to validate election fraud claims that had been disproved by the F.B.I. and state investigators.

The interim report, released publicly on Thursday, describes how Justice Department officials scrambled to stave off a series of events during a period when Mr. Trump was getting advice about blocking certification of the election from a lawyer he had first seen on television and the president’s actions were so unsettling that his top general and the House speaker discussed the nuclear chain of command.

“This report shows the American people just how close we came to a constitutional crisis,” Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “Thanks to a number of upstanding Americans in the Department of Justice, Donald Trump was unable to bend the department to his will. But it was not due to a lack of effort.”

Mr. Durbin said that he believes the former president, who remains a front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024, would have “shredded the Constitution to stay in power.”

The report by Mr. Durbin’s committee hews closely to previous accounts of the final days of the Trump administration, which led multiple Congressional panels and the Justice Department’s watchdog to open investigations.


But, drawing in particular on interviews with Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue, both of whom were at the Jan. 3 Oval Office meeting, it brings to light new details that underscore the intensity and relentlessness with which Mr. Trump pursued his goal of upending the election, and the role that key government officials played in his efforts.


  • The report fleshes out the role of Jeffrey Clark, a little-known Justice Department official who participated in multiple conversations with Mr. Trump about how to upend the election and who pushed his superiors to send Georgia officials a letter that falsely claimed the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” Mr. Trump was weighing whether to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark. Of particular note was a Jan. 2 confrontation during which Mr. Clark seemed to both threaten and coerce Mr. Rosen to send the letter. He first raised the prospect that Mr. Trump could fire Mr. Rosen, and then said that he would decline any offer to replace Mr. Rosen as acting attorney general if Mr. Rosen sent the letter. Mr. Clark also revealed during that meeting that he had secretly conducted a witness interview with someone in Georgia in connection with election fraud allegations that had already been disproved.

  • The report raised fresh questions about what role Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, played in the White House effort to pressure the Justice Department to help upend the election. Mr. Perry called Mr. Donoghue to pressure him into investigating debunked election fraud allegations that had been made in Pennsylvania, the report said, and he complained to Mr. Donoghue that the Justice Department was not doing enough to look into such claims. Mr. Clark, the report said, also told officials that he had participated in the White House’s efforts at Mr. Perry’s request, and that the lawmaker took him to a meeting at the Oval Office to discuss voter fraud. That meeting occurred at around the same time that Mr. Perry and members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus met at the White House to discuss the Jan. 6 certification of the election results.

  • The report confirmed that Mr. Trump was the reason that Mr. Pak hastily left his role as U.S. attorney in Atlanta, an area that Mr. Trump wrongly told people he had won. Mr. Trump told top Justice Department officials that Mr. Pak was a never-Trumper, and he blamed Mr. Pak for the F.B.I.’s failure to find evidence of mass election fraud there. During the Jan. 3 fight in the Oval Office, Mr. Donoghue and others tried to convince Mr. Trump not to fire Mr. Pak, as he planned to resign in just a few days. But Mr. Trump made it clear to the officials that Mr. Pak was to leave the following day, leading Mr. Donoghue to phone him that evening and tell him he should pre-emptively resign. Mr. Trump also went outside the normal line of succession to push for a perceived loyalist, Bobby L. Christine, to run the Atlanta office. Mr. Christine had been the U.S. attorney in Savannah, and had donated to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
The report is not the Senate Judiciary Committee’s final word on the pressure campaign that was waged between Dec. 14, when Attorney General William P. Barr announced his resignation, and Jan. 6, when throngs of Mr. Trump’s supporters fought to block certification of the election.


The panel is still waiting for the National Archives to furnish documents, calendar appointments and communications involving the White House that concern efforts to subvert the election. It asked the National Archives, which stores correspondence and documents generated by previous presidential administrations, for the records this spring.

It is also waiting to see whether Mr. Clark will sit for an interview and help provide missing details about what was happening inside the White House during the Trump administration’s final weeks. Additionally, the committee has asked the District of Columbia Bar, which licenses and disciplines attorneys, to open a disciplinary investigation into Mr. Clark based on its findings.

The report recommended that the Justice Department tighten procedures concerning when it can take certain overt steps in election-related fraud investigations. As attorney general, the report said, Mr. Barr weakened the department’s decades-long strict policy of not taking investigative steps in fraud cases until after an election is certified, a measure that is meant to keep the fact of a federal investigation from impacting the election outcome.

The Senate panel found that Mr. Barr personally demanded that the department investigate voter fraud allegations, even if other authorities had looked into them and not found evidence of wrongdoing. These allegations included a claim by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer and a prime force behind the unfounded election fraud allegations, that he had a tape that showed Democratic poll workers kicking their Republican counterparts from a polling station and fraudulently adding votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. into the count.

Mr. Pak testified that Mr. Barr asked him to look into that claim and directed the F.B.I. to interview a witness about the matter, even though the Georgia secretary of state had deemed the tape to be without merit.

On Dec. 1, just two weeks before saying he would step down, Mr. Barr said that the Justice Department had found no evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to change the fact that Mr. Biden had won the presidency.

The report underscored how Mr. Trump kept coming back to unsubstantiated accounts of election fraud and demanding that the Justice Department jump on them.

Soon after the completion of the Oval Office meeting on the night of Jan. 3, the committee’s report said, Mr. Trump reached out to Mr. Donoghue, asking him to look into reports that the Department of Homeland Security had taken possession of a truck full of shredded ballots outside of Atlanta.
The report turned out to be false.
Link related to current concerns which won't fit in this post so may have to click further if of interest;

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/16/politics/trump-secretary-of-state-big-lie/index.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,049
5,425
118
This isn't the only concern with the still-politically-active-and-influential trump fash grabs, there are more current tactics being deployed to discuss or helplessly point at with extreme anxiety other than this investigation...
If this is even mostly true, it is yet more evidence Trump is unfit to hold office.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,441
5,559
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male




 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,441
5,559
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Go ahead, throw yourself in more boiling hot water. Makes no difference to me. Flip that coin.




 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
900
841
98
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
Go ahead, throw yourself in more boiling hot water. Makes no difference to me. Flip that coin.




I cannot imagine the arrogance required to think that you will be better at defending yourself than someone who has been trained to do so, going up against someone who has been trained as a prosecutor.

Oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,467
2,568
118
Australia
I cannot imagine the arrogance required to think that you will be better at defending yourself than someone who has been trained to do so, going up against someone who has been trained as a prosecutor.

Oh well.
"A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client", any number of legal scholars over the past couple hundred years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156 and BrawlMan

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
900
841
98
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
"A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client", any number of legal scholars over the past couple hundred years.
Generally speaking, even lawyers don't represent themselves in criminal matters.
That should serve as a big warning to anyone who wants to play lawyer.

Edit: Also "The only difference between a lawyer who represents themselves and a doctor who treats themselves is that the former must live with the consequences"
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,089
302
88
I cannot imagine the arrogance required to think that you will be better at defending yourself than someone who has been trained to do so, going up against someone who has been trained as a prosecutor.

Oh well.
It actually makes sense if you think you are going to a show trial into some unfair show trial. Defending yourself gives you a platform and several people have used that successfully in the past. Not that that gives you a better sentence.

But those who believe in all the conspiracies and how the courts are in it anyway, it might seem reasonable.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
13,168
3,625
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I cannot imagine the arrogance required to think that you will be better at defending yourself than someone who has been trained to do so, going up against someone who has been trained as a prosecutor.

Oh well.
Here's the thing, though: The "sovereign citizen" movement has fooled themselves into thinking they are at once above the law and in command of it- that they cannot ever be punished for their actions because they are not "citizens of the United States", but that they are allowed to make use of the law to punish others they deem to have "violated their rights". They think that the Magna Carta supersedes the Constitution. The lawsuits they file are basically long-winded rants paired with threats of execution for treason and completely-misused legal terms that they sprinkle in like Latin words in a magical spell.

There's no logic to be found in their actions because at the very core their beliefs are insane.
 

Burnhardt

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
140
21
23
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Does it really matter?
I cannot imagine the arrogance required to think that you will be better at defending yourself than someone who has been trained to do so, going up against someone who has been trained as a prosecutor.

Oh well.
Quite a lot I think.

Take that Independent article for example. One person seems to think that they should be paid to defend themselves, as if they thought themselves as a Public defender for doing so.

Or maybe they are hoping for a mistrial through some form of violation of the fifth amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,049
5,425
118
Take that Independent article for example. One person seems to think that they should be paid to defend themselves, as if they thought themselves as a Public defender for doing so.
Really? How fascinating that they suddenly become in favour of welfare when it suits them.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
5,641
3,702
118
Country
United States
It's not welfare when you give money to corporations, and the government has them specifically listed down as individual corporations the sovereign citizens aren't using their True Names on legal documents, only their government issued private corporation ones, ergo...

They're basically trying to use some bullshit Rules of Magic on the legal system
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,049
5,425
118

I'm totally no expert on law, but if the executive agrees to hand over documents to the legislature voluntarily, I absolutely cannot see any good reason why a private citizen - even one who used to be head of the executive - has any grounds to interfere. Trump was of course famous extremely litigious before he came president. I suppose he might in some cases have made quite a lot of money that way, but I think he's probably wasted a lot on stupid cases too - maybe his lawyers weren't prepared to tell him he had no worthwhile case, or it just gave him some comfort that he was doing something.

Irrespective of the political sides, I'm a big fan of government transparency. I appreciate some stuff needs to be locked away because it's not appropriate for the wrong eyes to see, but I'd like more of what governments and high ranking officials did made public where viable.