#Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriottruth · 2 months ago

Text

2024 U.S. Presidential Election: Ronald Reagan's Informed Patriotism: donald j. trump Is Not the President Elect Because No Sworn Official Can Count Even One Vote For An Insurrectionist. The Immediate Disbarring of All 6 MAGA SCOTUS Injustices, Denying donald j. trump Even One American/Electoral Vote, Denying donald j. trump and all of his allies Access to Their MAGA Insurrectionist SCOTUS Injustices For All 2024 Election Litigation, and Immediately Restoring National Roe vs. Wade Protections Via The Remaining Three SCOTUS Justices.

After Democratic nominee Joe Biden easily won the 2020 United States presidential election with a massive American mandate and landslide victory of 81 million votes, failed Republican nominee and then-incumbent president Donald Trump pursued an unprecedented effort to overturn the election, with support from his campaign, proxies, political allies, and many of his supporters. These efforts culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack by donald j. trump's deranged and vicious cult of supporters in an attempted self-coup d'état where a police officer died after being assaulted by deposed donald j. trump's insurrectionist rioters. Many people were injured, including 174 police officers, and donald j. trump's uncivilized and mindless MAGA cult members defecated and smeared their feces all over the U.S. Capitol complex. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by donald j. trump's and his MAGA cult's insurrection against the United States of America, We The People of the United States of America, and the U.S. Capitol complex exceeded $2.7 million.

A week after the attack, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached the failed and undeniably deposed U.S. President donald j. trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only U.S. president to be impeached twice while also legally and constitutionally disqualifying him from running for reelection in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, or holding any public office anywhere in the United States of America ever again due to his betrayal of his Presidential Oath of Office, the United States of America, the U.S. government, and We The People of the United States of America.

Trump and his allies used the "big lie" propaganda technique to promote false claims and conspiracy theories asserting the election was stolen by means of rigged voting machines, electoral fraud and an international conspiracy. Trump pressed Department of Justice leaders to challenge the results and publicly state the election was corrupt. However, the attorney general, director of National Intelligence, and director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – as well as some Trump campaign staff – dismissed these claims. State and federal judges, election officials, and state governors also determined the claims were baseless. Trump's legal team sought to bring a case before the Supreme Court, but none of the 63 lawsuits they filed were successful. They pinned their hopes on Texas v. Pennsylvania, but on December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Afterward, Trump considered ways to remain in power, including military intervention, seizing voting machines, and another appeal to the Supreme Court.

In June 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack said it had enough evidence to recommend that the Department of Justice indict the failed and undeniably deposed former U.S. President donald j. trump, and on December 19, the committee formally made the criminal referral to the Justice Department. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted by a D.C. grand jury for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Republicans in support of the indictment Mike Pence, who was Trump's vice president and, at the time, was also running for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election, issued a statement strongly condemning Trump, stating that this indictment was "an important reminder [that] anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States". In an interview with reporters at the Indiana State Fair the next day, he expanded on his comments, stating that he could not have overturned the election results as vice president.

Former U.S. attorney general William Barr said the case against Trump was legitimate and that he will testify if he is called.

Adam Kinzinger, a member of the January 6 Committee and a former Illinois representative, tweeted that "Today is the beginning of justice" and added that Trump is "a cancer on our democracy".

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said Trump "swore an oath to the Constitution, violated his oath & brought shame to his presidency."

Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said "Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding our nation's highest office again."

On August 14, 2023, nearly a dozen former judges and federal legal officials, all appointed by Republicans, submitted an amicus brief saying they agreed with Jack Smith's 1proposed trial date of January 2, 2024. The brief states "There is no more important issue facing America and the American people—and to the very functioning of democracy—than whether the former president is guilty of criminally undermining America's elections and American democracy in order to remain in power […]".

On August 14, Trump and 18 co-defendants, were indicted in Fulton County, Georgia for their efforts to overturn the election results in that state. Ten leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Capitol attack. As of May 6, 2024, of the 1,424 people charged with federal crimes relating to the event, 820 have pleaded guilty (255 to felonies and 565 to misdemeanors), and 884 defendants have been sentenced, 541 of whom received a jail sentence. Failed and deposed U.S. President and insurrectionist presidential candidate donald j. trump hails and salutes his imprisoned insurrectionist supporters at his 2024 presidential election rallies while he plays their January 6 Insurrectionist Choir version of a completely corrupted and deranged anti-American version of the U.S. National Anthem, and then he repeatedly promises to pardon all of his caged animal, shit-smearing, anti-American MAGA Nazi cult traitors should he be elected back into the White House on November 5, 2024.

LAW AND ORDER!!! United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira is a federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, Walt Nauta, his personal aide and valet, and Mar-a-Lago maintenance chief Carlos De Oliveira. The grand jury indictment brought 40 felony counts against Trump related to his mishandling of classified documents after his presidency. The case marks the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president.

In May 2022, a grand jury issued a subpoena for any remaining documents in Trump's possession. Trump certified that he was returning all the remaining documents on June 3, 2022, but the FBI later obtained evidence that he had intentionally moved documents to hide them from his lawyers and the FBI and thus had not fulfilled the subpoena.

This led to the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, in which the FBI recovered over 13,000 government documents, over 300 of which were classified, with some relating to national defense secrets covered under the Espionage Act.

On June 8, 2023, the original indictment with 37 felony counts against Trump was filed in the federal district court in Miami by the office of the Smith special counsel investigation. On July 27, a superseding indictment charged an additional three felonies against Trump. Trump was charged separately for each of 32 documents under the Espionage Act. The other eight charges against him included making false statements and engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. The most serious charges against Trump and Nauta carried a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

LAW AND ORDER!!! The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The President of the United States of America is the Chief Executive and Judicial Officer over ALL U.S. states and territories both individually and as a whole. Therefore, there was never a question for the Supreme Court to decide regarding impeached insurrectionist donald j. trump appearing on any U.S. presidential election ballot on any U.S. state or territory. The Supreme Court of the United States is one of two checks and balances for the President of the United States; and the individual states, and all U.S. residents and citizens, can and do attempt to have matters settled at a local and state level by the Supreme Court of the United States. The "Take Care" clause of the United States Constitution firmly places the responsibility of ensuring the SCOTUS doesn't go rogue or overstep their authority upon the President of the United States as the Chief Executive and Judicial Officer over the entire United States as a whole, and each state and territory individually, via Presidential Executive Orders and the U.S. Department of Justice. Congress then serves as the other check and balance for both the President of the United States and the SCOTUS.

On December 19, 2023, in the case Anderson v. Griswold, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the court held it would be a "wrongful act" under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. This decision was stayed until January 4, 2024, in the expectation that Trump would seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. The Colorado Republican Party appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Colorado Secretary of State announced that Trump will be included on the primary ballot "unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling."

On December 28, 2023, Maine announced that Trump would not appear on the ballot when the Secretary of State decided that Trump had committed insurrection, although the ruling was stayed for judicial review. Trump appealed to Kennebec County Superior Court. On January 17, the case was remanded back to the Maine Secretary of State for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Colorado case.

On January 3, 2024, Trump appealed to the US Supreme Court on the Colorado matter. His attorneys argued that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the presidency because the president is not an Officer of the United States. The Supreme Court announced on January 5, 2024, that it would hear the Colorado case, scheduling oral arguments for February 8.

"As President, I was never an 'officer of the United States' and I did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States'. Therefore, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to me, can't be applied to me, and can't prevent me from running for or holding office for my actions on January 6, 2021."- donald j. trump (November 27, 2023)

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested that President Joe Biden could be removed from the ballot via Section 3 due to his immigration policy having permitted "invasion". Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft threatened to take such action in retaliation. Three Republican members of state Houses of Representatives announced intent to parody the Colorado decision via introducing legislation towards removing Biden as an insurrectionist from their states' ballots.

On January 30, 2024, a challenge that cited Section 3 to argue against inclusion of Biden on the Illinois Democratic primary ballot was dismissed by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson reversed the Colorado Supreme Court decision, holding that Congress determines eligibility under Section 3 for federal officeholders and states may only bar candidates from state office.

While all nine justices agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power to the federal government, and not to the individual states, two separate opinions were issued. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the Court's decision that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officials, but wrote that the court should not have addressed "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced." Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion co-signed by all three Justices, concurred in the judgment, but said that the court went beyond what was needed for the case and should not have declared that Congress has the exclusive power to decide Section 3 eligibility questions, stating that the Court's opinion had decided "novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy."

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision, that failed and deposed insurrectionist 2020 election loser and former president donald j. trump had absolute immunity for acts he committed as president within his core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

Again, as the text of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly reads, and ONLY reads:

Section 3 clearly and ONLY gives Congress the power to remove a disability of an insurrectionist to "be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".

Section 3 clearly DOESN'T give Congress the power to impose or enforce a disability of an insurrectionist to "be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State". That's what Impeachment is for, and donald j. trump was impeached for insurrection and referred to the Department of Justice by a Congressional committee for prosecution for his and his supporters acts of insurrection against the United States of America on January 6, 2021.

Section 3 clearly DOESN'T give the United States Supreme Court the authority to illegally and criminally engage in insurrection against the United States of America by MODIFYING the U.S. Constitution AND LEGISLATING from the bench to relieve their own political party and the former insurrectionist U.S. President who appointed them from needing a two-thirds vote of each House to remove the disability of an insurrectionist to run for President of the United States and hold the office of the President of the United States should they be legally elected in a free and fair election. The insurrectionist MAGA cult that's taken over the former Republican Party of the United States knows that there was no way they were getting a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to put impeached insurrectionist and convicted felon donald j. trump on the ballot, and so they had their six legally disqualified U.S. Supreme Court criminal MAGA insurrectionist injustices legislate from the bench AND ILLEGALLY and CRIMINALLY modify the U.S. Constitution to put Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and impeached insurrectionist donald j. trump on the 2024 U.S. presidential election ballot.

There are two steps in the amendment process of modifying the U.S. Constitution. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly adopted and ratified before they change the Constitution. First, there are two procedures for adopting the language of a proposed amendment, either by (a) Congress, by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or (b) national convention (which shall take place whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures collectively call for one). Second, there are two procedures for ratifying the proposed amendment, which requires three-fourths of the states' (presently 38 of 50) approval: (a) consent of the state legislatures, or (b) consent of state ratifying conventions. The ratification method is chosen by Congress for each amendment. (Wikipedia)

The necessary CONTEXT for the LEGAL UNMODIFIED ORIGINAL text of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is this: At the time of the drafting of the United States Constitution, the Americans known as "We The People" were fighting and dying to liberate themselves out from under a tyrannical king! Obviously, a President or Vice President who'd engage in insurrection against the United States of America DURING OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER the creation of the United States Constitution would be executed for TREASON; and because it'd be impossible for "a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any officeholder, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State" to BE IN A POSISTION TO IMMEDIATELY PROCLAIM THEMSELVES THE NEW TYRANNICAL DIVINE KING FOR LIFE OVER THE UNITED STATES AMERICA; and because all traitors were being actively and immediately executed for TREASON, it'd have been impossible for an insurrectionist traitor President or Vice President to run for any office again - because they'd be dead; therefore, it was unnecessary to include an executed treasonous President and/or Vice President in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. With full knowledge and understanding of these facts, the criminal insurrectionist MAGA extremist U.S. Supreme Court injustices ILLEGALLY and CRIMINALLY legislated from the bench to modify Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution so that, as far as the 6 MAGA extremist U.S. Supreme Court injustices are concerned, it now reads as such WITHOUT having been LEGALLY amended by a both two-thirds vote of both houses of the U.S. Congress AND the approval of 38 of 50 U.S. states:

Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. As of March 4, 2024, six partisan Justices on the United States Supreme Court bypassed the legal and proper constitutional amendment process, legislated from the bench, and added the following illegal and unenforceable legislation to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution without Congressional or States approval and ratification: "Only Congress determines eligibility of insurrectionist candidates under Section 3 for federal officeholders and states may only bar insurrectionist candidates from state office. Federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced upon insurrectionist candidates for federal office."

How many elected Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the House of Representatives and the Senate provided the necessary two-thirds vote to amend the U.S. Constitution in this manner? What are the names of all of these so-called elected officials and where are the official voting records? What dates did these voting sessions occur?

Which of the 38 U.S. states ratified this Congressional two-thirds-vote-approved constitutional amendment so that the Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and insurrectionist donald j. trump could appear on the 2024 U.S. presidential ballot?

This is where the presidential Take Care Clause is automatically activated and the U.S. president enforces the laws of the United States and upholds, protects, and defends the U.S. Constitution, and perpetuates American democracy.

This is where all six MAGA criminal insurrectionist SCOTUS injustices face both immediate and permanent disbarment from ever practicing law anywhere in the United States of America AND Congressional Impeachment and removal from the Supreme Court of the United States of America for giving aid, comfort, and support to criminal defendant donald j. trump's felonies involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to the American people, the United States, his oath of office, and the U.S. Constitution, drug abuse, thefts of taxpayer and U.S. government monies, thefts of at least 13,000 classified documents and other U.S. government property, and a pattern of violations of all professional codes of ethics.

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law The president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the president even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law. The Take Care Clause demands that the president obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court explained how the president executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the president, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2." In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the president in the execution of the laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the president is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance." Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may later strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch. (Wikipedia)

The Take Care Clause is the constitutional checks and balances guardrail to counter judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and a rogue U.S. Supreme Court that's supporting and actively engaging in insurrection against the United States of America and We The People of the United States with the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. government, installing a dictator/King for life, ending American democracy, and engaging in tyranny against We The People of the United States of America. Due to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, President Joe Biden can simply overrule MAGA SCOTUS, remove donald j. trump from the 2024 U.S. presidential ballot, demand a new election with a new Republican or Independent candidate, and issue an Executive Order barring all six of the criminal insurrectionist MAGA extremist SCOTUS injustices from taking or ruling on any 2024 U.S. presidential election matters and/or any matters pertaining to donald j. trump, per the Berger Test that legally disqualifies them from doing so. President Biden can also simply issue an Executive Order proclaiming that no sworn election official or law enforcement official anywhere in the U.S. or its territories can attempt to cause even one vote for the Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and insurrectionist donald j. trump to be counted for the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

And all of that is EXACTLY why dumbass dumpster diaper cryin' lyin' anti-American MAGA Nazi and convicted felon, insurrectionist, serial sex offender, serial adulterer, serial rapist, lifetime incestuous pedophile groomer and lowlife sleazeball scum and failed, fraudulent and repeatedly bankrupted "businessman" and grifter/con artist donald j. trump and all of his supporters, enablers, donors, and voters want to destroy and abolish the U.S. Department of Education AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Anti-American MAGA School Book Bans:

What Would a Reagan Republican Do?

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.

Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the People' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-60s.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important -- why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, 'we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the 'shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still." - Ronald Reagan (1989 Farewell Speech)

20 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years ago

Text

Today marks two years since Americans turned on their televisions to watch something that many thought was impossible—a violent mob attacking the Capitol of the United States with the intention of disrupting the Electoral College vote count. Those days were followed by the creation of a House Select Committee and ten drama filled hearings that began on June 9, 2022 and ended December 19, 2022.

Many expected that the hearings would change public opinion, but on the second anniversary of the January 6 violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol, sentiment remains mostly divided along party lines and has barely budged since the first anniversary of this event. Americans remain split on the issue of whether former president Donald Trump committed crimes related to this event and whether he should be charged, and the dramatic testimony delivered at the public hearings of the Select Committee changed few minds.

During the past year, Quinnipiac University conducted a series of polls probing sentiment about January 6. Concerning the former president’s responsibility for events at the Capitol, here are the results from the beginning, middle, and end of 2022.

TABLE 1: HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY DOES DONALD TRUMP BEAR FOR JANUARY 6?

Opinion about the seriousness of the January 6 events was also stable. In January 2022, 50% of Americans thought that these events represented an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten, compared to 44% who believed that the country was making too much of these events and that it was time to move on. In December, Americans remained divided on this issue, 54% to 41%.

In July, the NPR/PBS/Marist survey posed the question differently but got similar results. Presented with three different assessments of January 6, 50% of respondents said that it was an insurrection that threatened democracy, 19% regarded it as constitutionally protected political protest, and 25% deemed it unfortunate but believed that it was time to move on.

Public opinion about the seriousness of Donald Trump’s actions related to January 6 showed a similar pattern of division and stability. In June 2022, according to Quinnipiac, 46% of Americans believed that Trump had committed a crime, but 47% disagreed. In July, after several more explosive public hearings, 48% thought that he had committed a crime, compared to 44% who didn’t. By December, sentiment remained unchanged, 47% to 43%.

In late August, a Monmouth University survey found that 41% wanted Trump to be charged with January 6 crimes, 34% did not, and 25% were unsure. There is no evidence that this balance shifted in the final months of 2022. If the Justice Department follows up on the January 6 committee’s criminal referral by charging the former president, the public response is likely to mirror this division.

Beyond the up-or-down legal issues, broader assessments of the former president’s actions on January 6 revealed some cracks in the wall of partisanship that surrounds these events. For example, a CNN survey in July found that 20% of Republicans believed that Trump’s statements had encouraged political violence and that 55% of Republicans did not think that Trump had done everything in his power to stop the violence once it erupted. Fifty-two percent of Republicans felt that Mike Pence had done more than Donald Trump on this fateful day to serve the national interest.

Some days of violence, such as the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor and the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, become symbols of national unity and resolve. The evidence so far suggests that January 6 will not join their ranks. It is more likely that to future generations, the day the U.S. Capitol was stormed will serve as a reminder of the deep political divisions that characterized the current era of American politics.

8 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 27, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This morning, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol began its hearings with testimony from two Capitol Police officers and two Metropolitan Police officers.

After Representatives Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) opened the hearing, Sergeant Aquilino Gonell and and Officer Harry Dunn of the Capitol Police, and Officer Michael Fanone and Officer Daniel Hodges of the Metropolitan Police, recounted hand-to-hand combat against rioters who were looking to stop the election of Democrat Joe Biden and kill elected officials whom they thought were standing in the way of Trump’s reelection. They gouged eyes, sprayed chemicals, shouted the n-word, and told the officers they were going to die. They said: “Trump sent us.”

Lawmakers questioning the officers had them walk the members through horrific video footage taken from the officers’ body cameras. The officers said that one of the hardest parts of the insurrection for them was hearing the very people whose lives they had defended deny the horror of that day. They called the rioters terrorists who were engaged in a coup attempt, and called the indifference of lawmakers to those who had protected them “disgraceful.” “I feel like I went to hell and back to protect them and the people in this room,” Fanone said. “But too many are now telling me that hell doesn’t exist, or that hell wasn’t actually that bad.”

The officers indicated they thought that Trump was responsible for the riot. When asked if Trump was correct that it was “a loving crowd,” Gonell responded: “To me, it’s insulting, just demoralizing because of everything that we did to prevent everyone in the Capitol from getting hurt…. And what he was doing, instead of sending the military, instead of sending the support or telling his people, his supporters, to stop this nonsense, he begged them to continue fighting.” The officers asked the committee to make sure it did a thorough investigation. “There was an attack carried out on January 6, and a hit man sent them,” Dunn testified. “I want you to get to the bottom of that.”

The Republicans on the committee, Representatives Adam Kinzinger (IL) and Liz Cheney (WY) pushed back on Republican claims that the committee is partisan.

“Like most Americans, I’m frustrated that six months after a deadly insurrection breached the United States Capitol for several hours on live television, we still don’t know exactly what happened,” Kinzinger said. “Why? Because many in my party have treated this as just another partisan fight. It’s toxic and it’s a disservice to the officers and their families, to the staff and the employees in the Capitol complex, to the American people who deserve the truth, and to those generations before us who went to war to defend self-governance.”

Kinzinger rejected the Republican argument that the committee should investigate the Black Lives Matter protests of summer 2020, saying that he had been concerned about those protests but they were entirely different from the events of January 6: they did not threaten democracy. “There is a difference between breaking the law and rejecting the rule of law,” Kinzinger observed. (Research shows that more than 96% of the BLM protests had no violence or property damage.)

The officers and lawmakers both spoke eloquently of their determination to defend democracy. Sergeant Gonell, a U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq War who emigrated from the Dominican Republic, said: "As an immigrant to the United States, I am especially proud to have defended the U.S. Constitution and our democracy on January 6.” Adam Schiff (D-CA) added: “If we’re no longer committed to a peaceful transfer of power after elections if our side doesn’t win, then God help us. If we deem elections illegitimate merely because they didn’t go our way rather than trying to do better the next time, then God help us.”

Cheney said: “Until January 6th, we were proof positive for the world that a nation conceived in liberty could long endure. But now, January 6th threatens our most sacred legacy. The question for every one of us who serves in Congress, for every elected official across this great nation, indeed, for every American is this: Will we adhere to the rule of law? Will we respect the rulings of our courts? Will we preserve the peaceful transition of power? Or will we be so blinded by partisanship that we throw away the miracle of America? Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country and revere our Constitution?”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) both said they had been too busy to watch the hearing. But the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, John Thune of South Dakota, called the officers heroes and said: “We should listen to what they have to say.”

Republicans are somewhat desperately trying to change the subject in such a way that it will hurt Democrats. Shortly before the hearing started, McCarthy House Republican conference chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who was elected to that position after the conference tossed Liz Cheney for her refusal to support Trump after the insurrection; and Jim Banks (R-IN), whom McCarthy tried to put on the committee and who promised to undermine it, held a press conference. They tried to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for the attack on the Capitol, a right-wing talking point, although she, in fact, has no control over the Capitol Police.

Shortly after the hearing ended, some of the House’s key Trump supporters—Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Bob Good (R-VA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)—tried to hold a press conference in front of the Department of Justice, where they promised to complain about those arrested for their role in the January 6 insurrection, calling them “political prisoners.” The conference fell apart when protesters called Gaetz a pedophile (he is under investigation for sex trafficking a girl), and blew a whistle to drown the Republican lawmakers out.

This story is not going away, not only because the events of January 6 were a deadly attack on our democracy that almost succeeded and we want to know how and why that came to pass, but also because those testifying before the committee are under oath.

Since the 1950s, when Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI) pioneered constructing a false narrative to attract voters, the Movement Conservative faction of the Republican Party focused not on fact-based arguments but on emotionally powerful fiction. There are no punishments for lying in front of television cameras in America, and from Ronald Reagan’s Welfare Queen to Rush Limbaugh’s “Feminazis” to the Fox News Channel personalities’ warnings about dangerous Democrats to Rudy Giuliani’s “witnesses” to “voter fraud” in the 2020 election, Republicans advanced fictions and howled about the “liberal media” when they were fact-checked. By the time of the impeachment hearings for former president Trump, Republican lawmakers like Jim Jordan (R-OH) didn’t even pretend to care about facts but instead yelled and badgered to get clips that could be arranged into a fictional narrative on right-wing media.

Now, though, the Movement Conservative narrative that “socialist” Democrats stole the 2020 election, a narrative embraced by leading Republican lawmakers, a story that sits at the heart of dozens of voter suppression laws and that led to one attempted coup and feeds another, a narrative that would, if it succeeds, create a one-party government, is coming up against public testimony under oath.

“The American people deserve the full and open testimony of every person with knowledge of the planning and preparation for January 6th,” Cheney said today. “We must also know what happened every minute of that day in the White House—every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack.” She added: “We must issue and enforce subpoenas promptly.”

—-

Notes:

Manu Raju @mkrajuRep. Liz Cheney told me the Jan. 6 investigators should move rapidly to enforce subpoenas. She didn't specify who should be subpoenaed. "I think it is very important that we issue and enforce subpoenas, as the chairman has said, and we do that quickly," Cheney said1,091 Retweets5,401 Likes

July 27th 2021

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37144429/capitol-police-officer-slam-table-michael-fanone/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/five-takeaways-from-the-first-jan-6-committee-hearing

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-security/police-recount-calamity-of-u-s-capitol-attack-at-panel-hearing-idUSKBN2EX12Z

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/27/one-republicans-jan-6-committee-went-out-his-way-rebut-his-partys-whataboutism/

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/27/1021161550/this-is-how-im-going-to-die-police-sergeant-recalls-the-terror-of-jan-6

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/us/jan-6-inquiry.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/27/jan-6-commission-hearing-live-updates/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/27/liz-cheney-statement-jan-6-committee-probing-capitol-insurrection/5375885001/

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#political #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #January 6 2021 #capital insurrection #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP

5 notes · View notes

meret118 · 2 years ago

Text

The Committee showed Americans that the Secret Service, the FBI and the White House all knew that the attacks were coming and they not only did nothing, but they kept it quiet.

#News #Coup

0 notes

extreme-investor-network · 2 years ago

Text

Former Trump aide Steve Bannon guilty in Jan. 6 contempt of Congress case

Former Trump White House aide Steve Bannon was found guilty Friday of two counts of contempt of Congress after a trial in federal court in Washington, D.C. Jurors deliberated for less than three hours before convicting Bannon of willfully failing to comply with subpoenas demanding his testimony and records, which were issued last September by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. He faces a minimum punishment of 30 days in jail and a maximum of one year when he is sentenced on Oct. 21. He also faces a fine in the range of $100 to a maximum of $100,000. “The subpoena to Stephen Bannon was not an invitation that could be rejected or ignored,” said Matthew Graves, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. “Mr. Bannon had an obligation to appear before the House Select Committee to give testimony and provide documents. His refusal to do so was deliberate, and now a jury has found that he must pay the consequences.” “We respect their decision,” Bannon, 68, said outside of the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, referring to the jurors at his trial. “We may have lost a battle here today, but we’re not going to lose this war,” Bannon said. “I stand with Trump and the Constitution, and I will never back off that, ever.” Bannon plans to appeal his conviction, which came a day after the Jan. 6 committee held a public hearing that featured evidence that included his own words. The committee played an audio clip of Bannon, speaking to a group of people on Oct. 31, 2020, days before the presidential election, in which he said that Trump would claim to have won the White House race regardless of the actual results. “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon said. “He’s just gonna say he’s a winner. That is exactly what Trump did for weeks after losing both the popular election vote and the Electoral College vote to President Joe Biden. On Jan. 5, 2021, the eve of Congress holding a joint session to confirm Biden’s Electoral College victory, Bannon spoke to Trump on the phone for 11 minutes, and then went on a radio show where he made a dark prediction. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” Bannon said on that show. “It’s all converging, and now we’re on, as they say, the point of attack.” “I��ll tell you this: It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen,” he said. “It’s going to be quite extraordinarily different, and all I can say is strap in.” The next day, thousands of Trump supporters who believed he had won the election besieged the Capitol, with hundreds of them swarming through the halls of Congress, disrupting for hours the session confirming the official results. The leaders of the Jan. 6 committee lauded the jury’s decision Friday. “The conviction of Steve Bannon is a victory for the rule of law and an important affirmation of the Select Committee’s work,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is chair of the Jan. 6 committee, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said in a joint statement Friday afternoon. “As the prosecutor stated, Steve Bannon ‘chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law.’ Just as there must be accountability for all those responsible for the events of January 6th, anyone who obstructs our investigation into these matters should face consequences. No one is above the law,” Thompson and Cheney said. Bannon had served as chief strategist and counselor to Trump for about a half-year before being ousted in mid-2017. Since then, however, he has been an ardent backer of the ex-president and the so-called MAGA — “Make America Great Again” — movement. Two weeks after the Capitol riot, on his last night as president, Trump issued dozens of pardons, including one to Bannon, who had been criminally charged in federal court in New York with swindling donors in a purported effort to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Prosecutors in that case said Bannon received $1 million in funds from the We Build the Wall group, and diverted that money to a separate nonprofit he had already created, whose ostensible purpose was “promoting economic nationalism and American sovereignty.” In her closing arguments Friday morning at Bannon’s contempt trial, assistant U.S. Attorney Molly Gaston told jurors he “chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law” by refusing to appear for testimony and give documents to the Jan. 6 committee. “When it really comes down to it, he did not want to recognize Congress’ authority or play by the government’s rules,” Gaston said. “Our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they do not.” Bannon’s lawyers did not present a defense during the trial, which began Monday with jury selection. His attorneys were hamstrung by pretrial rulings by the judge in the case, who severely limited the evidence they could present at trial. During his own closing arguments Friday, Bannon’s lawyer Evan Corcoran tried to suggest that Thompson did not sign a subpoena for Bannon, NBC reported. Corcoran dropped that line of argument after the prosecution objected. Corcoran also asked jurors to set aside memories of Jan. 6 in their deliberations. “None of us will soon forget January 6, 2021,” Corcoran said. “It’s part of our collective memory. But there’s no evidence in this case that Steve Bannon was involved at all. For purposes of this case we have to put out of our thoughts January 6.” Jurors began their deliberations just before 11:40 a.m. ET, after closing arguments concluded. The verdicts were read out in court at around 2:50 p.m. ET. Another former Trump aide, the trade advisor Peter Navarro, was arrested in early June on charges identical to the ones that Bannon was convicted of. Navarro failed to appear to testify on March 2 in response to the subpoena from the House panel and also failed to produce by Feb. 23 the documents sought by that same subpoena, according to the indictment issued by a grand jury in Washington federal court. Original Article Here: Read the full article

0 notes

seriousbusinessforhumans · 2 years ago

Video

youtube

Now between election day and inauguration day trump and his supporters sought to overturn the results by filing over 62 lawsuits, where they lost every single one, but a tiny part of one case involving proximity to ballots

Made repeated allegations of election fraud in the news…and tried to convince legislators to take part in pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to ‘find enough votes’ to carry that particular state.

“So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes.” – Donald Trump’s phone call

In addition 84 republicans signed legal documents, falsely claiming to be the duly chosen electors for Donald Trump in the electoral college, despite Trump having lost in those particular states.

This fake electors scheme was led in part by Rudy Giuliani and Trump lawyer John Eastman, the latter of whom penned two now public memos to pressure vice president Mike Pence to overthrow the election results.

And on January 6 2021, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to disrupt a joint session of congress that had convened to certify the results.

But the January 6th hearings are looking…to see what crimes and to what extent the Trump White House’s allies and even Trump were responsible for on that day.

Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (4:40) –

To convict some of defrauding the US, the government must establish three elements . 1. Intent (t0 obstruct the lawful function of Government), 2. Means (Deceitful or Dishonest) 3. Engage in overt acts of furtherance of agreement.

The January 6th committee has laid out a seven point plan for how Trump and his allies orchestrated to defraud the US government.

1. Spread False Information - They engaged in a considered effort to spread false information to the American public

2. Orchestrated a Corrupt Scheme - They orchestgrated a corrupt scheme between Trump, his chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Representative Scott Perry to replace the acting attorney general who rejected Trump’s fraud claims, with Trump DOJ ally Jeffrey Clark to use the Justice Department to overturn the election.

3. Attempted the “Coup Memos” – They implemented a plan by attorney John Eastman in two now public legal memos to pressure vice-president Pence to refuse to count or delay the certification of the electoral count despite Eastman’s knowledge that this violated federal law.

4. Pressured State Officials - They pressured state election officials and state legislators to change election results like Trump’s infamous Jan 2nd call to Georgia’s secretary of state Bradford Raffensperger to quote “Find enough votes” to flip the state’s results

5. Created False Electoral Slates - The instructed key Republicans including chief of staff Mark Meadows, acting at Trump’s behest in multiple states to embrace Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman’s plan to create a false electoral slate in seven battleground states and transmit those fake slates to Congress and the national archives.

6. Incited Violent Mob – They summoned, assembled and incited a violent mob and directed them to March on the US capitol.

7. Did Nothing during the violence – During the attack Trump ignored pleas for assistance, failed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and even appeared to tacitly endorse the violence.

Obstruction of An Official Proceeding of Congress (7:45) –

Hundreds of Capitol Rioters have been charged with this crime. And for many this is the only felony that they were charged with.

The legal theory for prosecution is that former president trump in concert with allies like Eastman, Clark, Meadows and others intentionally or corruptly interfered with Congress’s certification of electoral votes, despite aggressive pushback….Multiple members of Trump’s circle testified under oath to the select committee that they all told Trump his claims of election fraud were baseless including Attorney Gneral Bill Barr, Campaign Aid Jason Miller, Mike Pence’s former chief of staff Marc Short and even his own daughter Ivanka. And even though Trump’s circle told him his claims were baseless, his supporters took those claims as gospel…And the mob believing these election lies did successfully delay the account for at least seven hours by violently forcing both chambers into recess and hiding.

Trump’s reported obstruction scheme also involves strong arming the DOJ to overturn the election. And contemporaneous notes of acting acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue showed that Trump asked him directly to, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen”. Suggesting that Trump didn’t want a good faith investigation just DOJ declaring as cover for throwing out Biden’s dually elected electoral votes. And accordingly the select committee has presented evidence that Trump and others obstructed an official proceeding by advancing legal strategies they knew where unlawful.

Wire Fraud (10:55) –

President Trump raised hundreds of millions of dollars for what he told supporters was to contest the results…Trump raised millions for an election defense fund that may not actually exist. This could be Wire Fraud.

Criminal Solicitation to Commit Election Fraud (and other Georgia State crimes) (13:30) –

Trump is particularly vulnerable to a litany of state charges in Georgia where Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis has convinced a special grand jury to investigate Trump and his allies efforts to pressure election officials and change the vote count.

At the center of this crime are the two recorded phone calls involving the president applying pressure to state election officials to flip the state from Biden to himself. First on Dec 23, 2020 Trump urged Francis Watson the chief election investigator from Georgia’s state office to find fraud, telling her “When the right answer comes out you’ll be praised”. And second in the January 2, 2021 recorded call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Bradford Raffensperger where the president famously demanded that he “I just want to find 11,780 votes. Which is one more than we have”. When Raffensperger rejected Trump’s claims of voter fraud…Trump suggested he could face criminal charges, telling him it would be illegal and a big risk to resolve against reporting Trump’s false claims. Trump also implicitly threatened other state officials with jail time.

Trump to Raffendperger – “So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

Illustrating the expanded scope of the investigation, the grand jury has subpoenaed several key members of the Trump legal team…including John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani who twice presented Georgia state legislature with fake evidence and wild conspiracy theories. The Grand jury has also subpoenaed US Senator Lindsey Graham who twice asked Raffensperger if there was any way to throw out mail in ballots.

Incitement to Riot and Insurrection (17:25) –

Trump was acquitted of incitement to insurrection in his second impeachment trial but since that was not a judicial trial, there’s no double jeopoardy problem and he could potentially face charges on various incitement statutes (including Anti-Riot Act, and Rebellion or Insurrection). Conviction under these statutes would be incredibly difficult because political speech tends to be at the very core of the First Amendment.

The committee has presented evidence that Trump not only incited the mob to go to the capitol but Trump endorsed the violence of the people he saw while they were there on his behalf. Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aid to Mark Meadows provided testimony that Trump was aware that many people were armed with knives, guns, bear spray, body armor, speaks and flagpoles, and he didn’t care because these were “my people”. Hutchinson further testified that she heard something to the effect of “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons; they’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking Mags away.” And “Let my people in. They can march on the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the fucking Mags away.” And Hutchinson also testified that when Trump was told about the rioter’s “Hang Mike Pence” chants, Trump approvingly responded “Maybe our supporters have the right idea, [Mike Pence] deserves it”.

Furthermore the Joint Chiefs chairman General Mark Milley testified that Pence ordered National Guard troops to defend the Capitol while Trump allowed the violence to continue unabated. We also know that Trump waited 187 minutes before putting out a statement asking for calm.

Witness Tampering and Obstruction of Justice (20:35) –

After Hutchinson’s testimony the select committee produced examples of witnesses being asked by people, apparently close to trump, to be loyal to him and his administration. Rep Liz Cheney said an unnamed witness told the committee “What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World……” And the second example Cheney sited was a call a witness received (???) saying “[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.” The select committee has suggested there are many more exampled of similar efforts to influence witnesses.

With respect to Obstruction of Justice, that criminalizes corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding a congressional investigation through threats or force. Hutchinson told the committee that several members of the far right House Freedom Caucus asked for preemptive pardons for themselves and others in connection with their efforts to overturn the election including Representatives Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, and Scott Harry. Hutchinson also said Jim Jordan asked for an update on presidential pardons without asking for one directly, and she heard from another staffer that MTG had asked for a pardon. These preemptive pardon requests could be an effort to induce those involved or who are witnesses to criminal conduct to remain silent which even with a president’s nearly unlimited pardon power might constitute criminal violations. Hutchinson also told the committee that she witnessed Meadows burn documents after a meeting in his office with Rep. Scott Perry.

Seditious Conspiracy (23:30) –

Sedition being just a step below treason….Prosecutors would have to establish that at least 2 people conspired to overthrow the government, oppose it’s authority or subvert the execution of US law. These charges…were brought before some members of the far right Proud Boys including their leader Enricho Terreo (?), for conspiring to use armed force to violently oppose the peaceful transfer of presidential power. So, what might Sedition charges against Trump or his circle look like? … Committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson told CNN that witnesses had described conversations between far right and Trump’s circle. Direct communications with Oathkeepers and Proud Boys could be concrete evidence of White House involvement in the same crimes. It’s hard to say since we haven’t seen that evidence yet. Days after the attack we learned that Trump and Rudy Giuliani urged at least one GOP senator to stall the proceedings while the violence unfolded.

#Capitol Riot #January 6 Hearing #Donald Trump #matt gaetz #Mo Brooks #andy biggs #Jim Jordan #Proud Boys #Oathkeepers #legal eagle #video #american politics

0 notes

xtruss · 2 years ago

Text

Will Trump Do Time? What It Would Take to Convict the Former President

— By David H. Freedman | 07/20/22 | Newsweek

Most legal and constitutional experts agree: Given the facts that have come to light about former President Donald Trump's role in the mob attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, it is now plausible that he will be charged with crimes, tried and convicted. "It's no longer premature to say that Trump could end up in prison," says Michael Conway, a longtime trial lawyer who started his career as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon in 1974 , and who now teaches ethics and the law at Northwestern University. "It's a winnable case."

The same experts are quick to point out that no criminal case is a sure thing, and that's triply true for the prospects of tagging Trump with a crime. For one thing, allegations of misdeeds, including fraud, sexual assault and treason, have dogged Trump from the 1970s through his presidency. He has yet to face a criminal trial, let alone conviction.

More important, the closest any former U.S. president has ever come to being charged with a crime is Ulysses S. Grant, who was arrested and fined for speeding in a horse-drawn buggy in 1872. Breaking that 150-year streak could shake the already weakened foundations of American democracy. "Prosecuting a former president is a highly fraught thing to do, especially when a president retains as much support as [Trump] still does," says Tom Ginsburg, a professor of international law and political science at the University of Chicago and co-author of the book How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. "It opens the door to spurious prosecutions of political opponents down the road."

As Republicans look to take control of the House in this year's elections, they are already plotting their revenge for the January 6 inquiry by targeting figures like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for investigation. If the Biden administration files criminal charges against Trump, those efforts will likely go nuclear.

Here's a look at what charges Trump may well be facing—and, if they are in fact brought against him, how the results are likely to play out in the courtroom and conceivably the prison system.

Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-MS), delivers remarks during the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Left: Cassidy Hutchinson, a top former aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is sworn in to testify during the sixth hearing by the House Select Committee. Right: The U.S. Capitol building on January 06, 2021.

The Alleged Crimes

The mostly likely actions against Trump right now are federal charges stemming from his role in the attack on the Capitol, and both federal and state charges concerning his efforts to convince various officials—including then-Vice President Mike Pence—to fraudulently position Trump as the winner of the 2020 election.

Federal charges could take several forms, though they would amount to essentially the same things and require the same sorts of evidence. In terms of Trump's contributing in some way to the actions of the mob on January 6, potential charges could include solicitation to commit a crime of violence, incitement of riot and obstruction of Congress—the latter charge applying because the mob was seeking to interrupt the joint session of Congress being held at the time to certify the election results.

For a guilty verdict on any of those three mob-related charges, the prosecution would have to convince a jury that Trump intentionally helped incite the mob to violence. Among the key pieces of evidence known to the public: On January 6, he told supporters at the Ellipse—a crowd that would soon morph into the mob at the nearby Capitol—that "we're going to walk down to the Capitol," and that "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore;" according to testimony to the House's Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol from Cassidy Hutchinson, the assistant to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Trump ordered his security team to take down the magnetometers that had been screening for weapons, even after being told that many in the crowd were heavily armed; and, according to Hutchinson, Trump was repeatedly told by aides that the crowd was headed toward violence, and that he furiously demanded, if in vain, that his Secret Service driver take him to the Capitol to lead the mob that was forming there.

Federal charges related to efforts to reverse the election results could take the form of conspiracy to defraud the United States, seditious conspiracy and, again, obstruction of Congress. To convict on any of these charges, a jury would have to feel sure that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were themselves fraudulent, and he intended to overturn the legitimate election results.

Proving that Trump tried to reverse the election results shouldn't be hard, given the copious evidence from Committee witnesses that have included former Attorney General Bill Barr, former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel, Republican Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers, Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee Ronna McDaniel, key Trump campaign advisor Jason Miller, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, and Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

These witnesses detailed how Trump directed aides and various cronies, and tried himself, to convince election officials in battleground states that went to then-candidate Joe Biden to submit alternate slates of electors—that is, to falsely direct Congress to record that Trump won the state. The testimony also indicated Trump tried to squeeze Mike Pence into refusing to certify Biden as the winner, which would have been a blatant violation of Pence's constitutional duty. That pressure on Pence is why the obstruction of Congress charge could apply separately from the mob violence.

It will be more difficult to prove that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were phony. An array of aides, lawyers and advisors told him so, in no uncertain terms, according to testimony from the former DOJ officials and other Committee witnesses. Although that doesn't prove he accepted their assessment, prosecutors could argue that Trump's belief was not reasonable—that it was an act of "willful blindness"—and thus not a valid defense.

Trump could face separate state charges for his efforts to flip the election, most likely election-fraud charges from Georgia, where a special grand jury is under way investigating potential criminal interference in Georgia's 2020 elections. Trump was recorded on the phone with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger exhorting Raffensperger to somehow "find" the votes Trump needed to claim victory there. "Thanks to that recording," says Conway, "the facts aren't complicated there."

On January 19, 2021 members of the activist group Rise and Resist gathered at the steps of the New York Public Library (42nd St.-5th Ave).

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on Saturday, Oct. 09, 2021 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Making the Case

Getting a federal conviction will mean convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were phony, and that either he was intentionally trying to defraud the government through alternate slates of electors, or he was trying to get a mob to commit serious acts of violence.

The House's January 6 Committee has been presenting striking evidence to that effect to the nation in prime time. In particular, thanks to Hutchinson, we now have the shocking picture of Trump lurching at a steering wheel and grabbing a Secret Service agent's neck in a frenzied effort to join the Capitol mob, batting away warnings that he was criminally inciting a riot among a group of armed thugs he lovingly called "his people." Hutchinson claims many of these details were described at the time by former Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato, who along with at least one Secret Service agent has reportedly said he is willing to testify that Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel or assault an agent. (We also now know from Hutchinson that Trump threw food when angry, but that is not strictly illegal.)

Will it be enough to convict? Much, if not all, of what Hutchinson provided is likely to be excluded from a trial as "hearsay," in that she didn't witness the incidents firsthand. Likewise, many of the other conversations, messages and recollections that the committee has presented would be challenged on those grounds and others. And even if it were all ruled admissible, the aggregate still doesn't fully nail down Trump's intentions or create a solid link to the mob's actions.

To make the case, federal prosecutors will probably need to flip more Trump aides and cronies to uncover firsthand evidence that provides the missing links to state of mind and intent—assuming the links exist. Meadows and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone "were right there when it happened," says Conway. Cipollone has already given closed-door testimony, and Meadows is fighting a subpoena. Prosecutors have the option of offering Meadows and other key witnesses immunity or the promise of a reduced sentence for any criminal charges to get them to testify, he says.

Trump lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani are also likely prime targets for such pressure, Even close Trump allies in Congress like Ohio Representative Jim Jordan and Alaska Representative Mo Brooks—who allegedly asked Trump for a pardon—could be pressured under threatened or actual prosecution to spill the beans on Trump's foreknowledge of the insurrection or participation in fake-elector schemes. Testimony showing that Trump helped plan any of the incidents, or promised participants any sort of help, protection or pardons would make conviction more likely.

Regardless of how the evidence piles up, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has compelling reasons to direct Department of Justice prosecutors to leave Trump alone. For one, time is not on the DOJ's side. Under the best of conditions, moving a high-profile government prosecution from initial indictment to a jury verdict can take two or more years. Trump's hypothetical defense team would almost certainly be able to clog the gears with motion after motion to exclude evidence, block testimony and outright dismiss the case, each of which would then work their way through the system in appeal, in many cases up to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem headed to take partial, and perhaps full, control of Congress, and Trump is a contender for regaining the presidency in 2024. If Trump were re-elected, a prosecution wouldn't survive two minutes into his second term. Trump would show Garland to the door and perhaps seal the deal with a presidential self-pardon. "For all we know a DOJ prosecution announcement is coming, but a lot of people are looking at political calendars and getting worried," says Jon Michaels, a UCLA law professor who specializes in constitutional law and presidential power.

Even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't be able to directly interfere with a Trump prosecution, not without holding the presidency. In fact, it may be that key Republican leaders would secretly cheer a chance to rid Trump from the scene. In the aftermath of the January 6 events, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, both of whom reportedly disapprove privately of Trump's hold on the party, publicly blamed and criticized Trump for the insurrection. What's more, they both privately told colleagues they hoped and expected the fallout would finally sink Trump politically, the New York Times reported at the time.

After it became crystal clear in the weeks after January 6 that Republican voters and most Republicans in Congress were standing firm behind Trump, McConnell and McCarthy swung back to supporting him. McConnell has said that he would support Trump if he becomes the party's 2024 candidate for president. McCarthy now denies he ever bashed Trump in private after January 6, despite a recording that surfaced of him doing exactly that.

With McConnell and McCarthy having surrendered to the Trump-boosting Republican majority, the likely Republican response to a Trump prosecution will be scorched-earth retaliation against Democratic leaders. Many Trump loyalists have already signaled their eagerness to take advantage of a widely expected midterm election victory that would give them control of the House in 2023 to mire Democrats in investigations and inquiries. Ohio's Jordan and other far-right Trumpists are promising renewed investigations into Hunter Biden and into 2020 election fraud. And Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is among several Congressional Republicans who have said they plan to push a different sort of January 6 inquiry—one that probes the improbable notion that Nancy Pelosi was in some way behind the breach of the Capitol (never mind that she was a prime target of the mob).

All that is retaliation merely for the current House inquiry into January 6, notes Michaels. "It's frightening to think about what Republicans will do when they're in power if Garland goes after Trump," he says. "Once the Democrats use that big gun, Republicans will want to use it, too." For instance, the next Republican president, Trump or not, could try to get the DOJ to go after Former President Barack Obama with whipped-up criminal charges.

If a trial against Trump were actually allowed to play out, a conviction would not be a slam dunk. It only takes one slightly doubtful juror to hang a jury. That would be a disaster for the DOJ and the country, according to Joseph Wright, a Penn State political science professor who studies government repression. "Prosecuting and losing is a worst-case scenario," he says. "It will vindicate Trump's claims of a witch hunt."

Garland understands that danger, Wright adds, and won't risk pulling the trigger on prosecuting without the sort of evidence that would virtually guarantee conviction. These sorts of concerns are probably behind the Manhattan District Attorney's stated reluctance to move a long-running criminal investigation of Trump's business practices to prosecution, leading to the February resignation of two top prosecutors on the case, now widely seen as collapsing.

Even so, imagine Trump is prosecuted, tried and convicted for election-related crimes, without being elected president in 2024. An appeal is a certainty, and it's a good bet the Supreme Court would hear it, contends Ginsburg. "It's a very partisan court, one that has given Republicans an ultimate insurance policy," he says. "The majority has shown an asymmetric willingness to help Republicans on election issues, and I don't have any confidence they wouldn't do it in this situation." The Court has a ready-made justification for overturning a Trump conviction: Prevailing Constitutional theory has long held that a sitting president can't be criminally prosecuted, and it's not all that big a leap to extend that protection post-presidency for acts that took place during the presidency.

If the Supreme Court were to let a conviction stand, Trump might yet have another ace up his sleeve: A claim that he had secretly pardoned himself at the end of his presidency. As it turns out, there's no formal requirement that presidential pardons be recorded in any particular way, notes Margaret Love, the former U.S. pardon attorney under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and now an attorney specializing in pardon law. George Washington verbally communicated most of his pardons, and George Bush's 1992 pardons of the players in the Iran-Contra affair were never formally documented, notes Love.

As long as Trump can offer some proof that he granted it—perhaps calling on one or more cronies to swear they heard him say it—that it specified what crimes the pardon was for and that he didn't issue it in advance of committing the crimes, he might conceivably be covered. "The president could yell a pardon into the street, or scribble it on a cocktail napkin, and it's perfectly good," says Love.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Rudy Giuliani.

U.S. Capitol Police stand detain protesters outside of the House Chamber during a joint session of Congress on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.

The Accountability Question

Despite the risks and barriers to successfully prosecuting Trump, arguments in favor of trying anyway are also powerful. For one thing, any indictment would likely come in Washington, D.C., which could provide Garland with an immediate advantage. "It's a place that would provide him a very favorable jury," says Michaels.

Also encouraging for the prospects of making charges stick are the growing ranks of insurrectionists who are being convicted of everything from trespassing to seditious conspiracy—more than 300 have pleaded or been found guilty as of the first week of July, with another 500 or so still facing charges. As the prosecutions continue, the likelihood of uncovering new evidence of Trump's complicity in the mob's actions grows. Further bolstering the hunt for evidence is the swelling number of Trump associates and election officials in Washington, D.C., and in battleground states that have been served with DOJ subpoenas, including Trump lawyers Giuliani, Eastman and Jeffrey Clark. An Atlanta grand jury has also been issuing subpoenas in connection with the Trump-related Georgia election-fraud investigation.

What's more, it's far from a sure thing that Trump will be able to count on a break from the Supreme Court. In February the Court blew off Trump's efforts to block the House Select Committee's efforts to examine White House documents relating to the January 6 insurrection, and so far the Court hasn't shown much inclination to interfere in the election investigations. And the notion that Trump is guarding a secret self-pardon is so far purely speculative.

Perhaps most important, a decision to not prosecute Trump would rattle the foundations of democracy in its own way. "Not holding a president accountable for crimes is incompatible with the rule of law," says Ginsburg. "I've spent my life studying how other countries struggle with that, but I never thought I'd see it become an issue here." That sentiment echoes the feelings of most Americans. According to a June 23 ABC/Ipsos poll, about six in 10 Americans think Trump should face prosecution.

The concern that prosecuting a president would set off future retaliatory presidential prosecutions is misplaced, insists Michaels. "You set a worse precedent by not prosecuting," he says. "Republicans have already shown they're ready to go after anything that isn't nailed to the wall. They were talking about the articles of a Biden impeachment two days into his presidency." The worry that convicting Trump would bring his already rageful supporters to violence, he adds, invokes comparisons to the way U.S. officials hesitated a decade ago to bring Al-Qaeda terrorists to trial out of fear that its supporters would unleash more terrorism in America.

Should Trump face charges, get convicted, lose all appeals and fail to produce a pardon, he would then face sentencing. It's easy to imagine that a jury or judge, reluctant to produce the spectacle of a former president in a prison jumpsuit, might be tempted to hand out a light sentence—say, a year of house arrest. But that's not necessarily a safe compromise.

History provides a lesson: In 1923, a right-wing leader disgusted with his country's liberal government charged up a mob of armed thugs and pointed them to the government capitol. The mob was stopped after a skirmish in which four police officers died, and the leader was tried, found guilty and served eight months in comfortable quarters with civilian clothes and access to his secretary. Adolph Hitler's light punishment proved critical to his ability to jump back into the spotlight and lead his Nazi party to crush Germany's once-thriving democracy.

Given the seriousness of the crimes Trump would be charged with—they carry sentences of up to 20 years—it is more likely that conviction will lead to an actual prison sentence of two or more years. Forget the image of Trump lodging comfortably in a federal "country club" prison surrounded by friends and Secret Service agents while enjoying well-done steaks and practicing his putting, says Michele Deitch, the director of the Prison and Jail Innovation Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, and an expert on the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

Concerns for his safety as an ultra-high-profile target would inevitably land Trump in protective custody, a level of protection that minimum-security prisons aren't prepared to provide, explains Deitch. As a result, he would more likely end up at a medium-security facility. "In protective custody, he would typically be in a cell 23 hours per day, let out three times a week for an hour of solitary exercise in a slightly larger cage, and allowed to take showers a few times a week," she says. "It would be an austere, deprived and unpleasant setting—just as horrible as it is for all the prisoners there." Trump would still get Secret Service protection, but agents might not have much to do except hang out in an office at the prison and occasionally check out Trump's cell block.

One way Trump could stay busy in prison: running for president. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent a convict from running or winning election; nearly a million Americans voted for labor leader Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 presidential elections while he was serving a 10-year sentence in an Atlanta prison.

If a prison-based presidential bid failed, Trump would have one more way out of his sentence: Ask for a presidential pardon or clemency. Even Biden might be tempted, thanks to the fact that pardons can be conditional. Labor leader Jimmy Hoffa's 1971 pardon from Richard Nixon cut eight years off of Hoffa's 13-year sentence for jury tampering and fraud, but came with a catch: He couldn't run again for union office. A deal that kept Trump out of both prison and the White House might be seen as a win-win for everyone involved.

0 notes

democracyin-news · 3 years ago

Text

Trump told DOJ officials 'just say it was corrupt, and leave the rest up to me'

Trump told DOJ officials ‘just say it was corrupt, and leave the rest up to me’

Gaetz, Brooks, other GOP lawmakers sought Trump pardons after Jan. 6 Excerpts from an email by U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asking for pardons for members of Congress are shown on a screen during the fifth public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in…

View On WordPress

0 notes

onlyexplorer · 3 years ago

Text

FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump release this statement about flushing the January 6 notes down the toilet?

A picture shared on facebook purportedly shows a statement by former President Donald Trump implying that he destroyed evidence related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Verdict: False The image is fabricated. There is no record of Trump issuing such a statement. Fact check: Members of the United States House Select Committee are currently holding a series of public hearings to…

View On WordPress

0 notes

globalcourant · 3 years ago

Link

Trump and his allies remain 'clear and present danger,' retired GOP judge tells panelMichael Luttig, advisor to former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and a former U.S. federal judge, testifies during the third of eight planned public hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 16, 2022. Sarah Silbiger | ReutersRetired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, who advised the former vice president in the buildup to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, told the House committee investigating the attack that Trump and his allies remain a "clear and present danger" to U.S. democracy.Luttig, a Republican, warned the committee that Trump remains a danger because the former president has pledged to contest the next election for the White House in 2024 if Republicans don't win."That's not because of what happened on January 6th," Luttig said. "It's because to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate, were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election."Trump has not ruled out running for president again in 2024 after losing to President Joe Biden two years ago.— Brian SchwartzEastman asked Giuliani to be added to presidential pardon listTrump lawyer John Eastman (L) is shown on a screen during a hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2022.Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty ImagesTrump attorney John Eastman, who pushed for Pence to reject the 2020 election results, told former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that he wanted to be added to the list of presidential pardon recipients."I've decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works," Eastman wrote, according to a screenshot of the email displayed during the panel's third hearing.The email to Giuliani, who had helped spread an array of false election-fraud conspiracies, came days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the committee said.The email also came after a conversation with White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, who said he told Eastman on Jan. 7, 2021, "I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: get a great effing criminal defense lawyer, you're going to need it."Eastman did not receive a pardon from Trump. The committee played a video clip of Eastman being questioned by the committee, showing the lawyer pleading his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination numerous times.Eastman ultimately pleaded the Fifth 100 times, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said.— Kevin BreuningerFormer VP Mike Pence narrowly escaped death in Capitol riot on Jan. 6, committee saysU.S. former Vice President Mike Pence speaks on his phone in an underground parking garage of the U.S. Capitol complex as he refuses to get into his motorcade and be evacuated from the Capitol on January 6 in a video shown above, during the third of eight planned public hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 16, 2022. Jonathan Ernst | ReutersThe former vice president was within almost 40 feet of rioters on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, as the president initially failed to deescalate the mob of Trump supporters from attacking the Capitol, according to Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.Aguilar, a member of the House Select Committee investigating that attack on the Capitol, testified that Pence's life was in danger during the riot."Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger. A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance," Aguilar said during Thursday's hearing.Despite the threat on his life, Pence's former legal advisor Greg Jacob told the committee that the vice president refused to leave the Capitol."The Vice President did not want to take any chance that the world would see the Vice President of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol," Jacob said.Images on a screen show former US Vice President Mike Pence being evacuated on January 6, 2021 from the US Capitol during a hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2022.Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty ImagesTrump called Pence 'wimp' and 'the P word' in 'heated' phone call on morning of Jan. 6, former White House aides saidU.S. former President Donald Trump appears on the video screen during the third of eight planned public hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 16, 2022. Jonathan Ernst | ReutersTrump attacked his own vice president as a "wimp" in a tense phone call with Pence on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021, witnesses told the select committee."The conversation was, was pretty heated," said Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump, who was in the Oval Office along with others who witnessed Trump's call with Pence."It was a different tone than I had heard him take with the vice president before," Ivanka Trump said."I remember hearing the word 'wimp,'" Trump's former assistant Nicholas Luna said he heard the president say at the tail end of the call. "'Wimp' is the word I remember."Gen. Keith Kellogg, Pence's former national security advisor, told the committee he heard Trump say words to the effect of, "You're not tough enough to make the call."Ivanka's former chief of staff, Julia Radford, said that Trump's daughter told her after the call that the president had called Pence "the P word."— Kevin BreuningerEastman 'never really believed his own theory' that Pence could decide 2020 election, committee saysAttorney John Eastman gestures as he speaks next to U.S. President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, as Trump supporters gather ahead of the president’s speech to contest the certification by the U.S. Congress of the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election on the Ellipse in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021.Jim Bourg | ReutersJohn Eastman, a lawyer advising former President Donald Trump, "never really believed his own theory" that then-Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally make a decisive impact on the outcome of the 2020 race, a select committee member said.Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., displayed a draft letter to Trump dated October 2020, in which a theory was floated that, under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president could decide which electoral votes to count.An image of John Eastman is projected as the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol holds its third public hearing, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2022.Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty ImagesBut that idea was undercut in the same letter by Eastman, who wrote in blue text: "Nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own."Aguilar displayed the screenshot of the letter after Greg Jacob, former counsel to Pence, testified to the panel that Eastman admitted one day before the Capitol riot that the theory would be rejected 9-0 if it went before the Supreme Court.— Kevin BreuningerTrump officials thought theory of Pence deciding the election was 'nutty' and 'crazy,' ex-Trump spokesman saysVideo from an interview with Jason Miller, former President Trump Campaign Senior Advisor, is played during a hearing by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building on June 13, 2022 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla | Getty ImagesFormer Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said that multiple officials, including former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, had strong doubts about the theory that Pence had the power to decide the election — and said so prior to Jan. 6."The way it was communicated to me was that Pat Cipollone thought the idea was nutty and had at one point confronted [Trump lawyer John Eastman] with the same sentiment," Miller told the committee in an interview clip played during the hearing.Other officials close to Trump thought Eastman's theory "was crazy," Miller said in the taped clip. Two of them said that "there was no validity to it in any way, shape or form" prior to the Capitol riot, and would tell "anyone who would listen," Miller said.— Kevin BreuningerEx-judge and Pence advisor accuses Trump of instigating a 'war on democracy'Michael Luttig, advisor to former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and a former U.S. federal judge attends the third of eight planned public hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. June 16, 2022. Sarah Silbiger | ReutersRetired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, who advised Vice President Mike Pence ahead of the Capitol riot, directly accused former President Donald Trump and his allies of waging a "war on democracy" on Jan. 6, 2021."Our democracy today is on a knife's edge," Luttig, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said in a blistering witness statement shared with CNBC by the select committee.Luttig, one of two witnesses to speak during the committee's third public hearing, excoriated efforts by Trump and other to overturn the 2020 election, saying that "treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal America's democracy."Luttig's sweeping, damning speech slammed Trump for spreading false election-fraud conspiracies to claim he won the election, which he lost "fair and square" to President Joe Biden. And Luttig said it was "breathtaking" that Trump entertained meritless legal theories that were employed to try to reverse his election loss.The former judge, who was appointed to the U.S. appeals court by Republican former President George H.W. Bush, also took aim at the GOP itself. "The former president's party cynically and embarrassingly rationalizes January 6 as having been something between hallowed, legitimate public discourse and a visitors tour of the Capitol that got out of hand," he said. "January 6, of course, was neither, and the former president and his party know that."Luttig also defended Pence, who rejected Trump's demand that he refuse to count electoral votes for Joe Biden. "There were many cowards on the battlefield on January 6. The Vice President was not among them," Luttig said.— Kevin Breuninger'There was no way' Pence could pick the winner of the election, VP's ex-counsel saysFormer Vice President Mike Pence's counsel Greg Jacob said "there was no way" that Pence had the legal authority to refuse to count electoral votes and, essentially, select the winner of the presidential election.Jacob told the committee he first talked to Pence about the legal theory in in the month after the 2020 election, after the then-vice president to Trump started hearing and reading claims that he had a significant role to play on Jan. 6, 2021.After looking at the relevant provision in the Constitution's 12th Amendment, as well as the 19th-Century Electoral Count Act, Jacob and others found that the theory held no weight."We concluded that what you have is a sentence in the Constitution that is inartfully drafted," Jacob said. "But the vice president's first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers, who abhorred concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George the Third, would ever have put one person — particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome, because they were on the ticket for the election — in a role to have a decisive impact on the outcome of the election.""Our review of text, history and, frankly, just common sense, all confirmed the vice president's first instinct on that point," Jacob said. "There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the vice president has that kind of authority."— Kevin BreuningerPence's courage on Jan. 6 'put him in tremendous danger,' Thompson saysU.S. Vice President Mike Pence presides over a joint session of Congress on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.Saul Loeb | Getty ImagesChairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said that the U.S. is "fortunate for Mr. Pence's courage on January 6," when the then-vice president refused Trump's calls for him to reject Electoral College votes.Trump "wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again," Thompson said at the start of the hearing. "Mike Pence said no.""Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe. That courage put [Pence] in tremendous danger" when Trump "turned the mob on him," Thompson said.— Kevin BreuningerPence advisors are scheduled to testifyFormer Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence, Greg Jacob (L), and Retired judge and and informal advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, J. Michael Luttig (R), arrive to testify during the third hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2022.Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty ImagesThe select committee is expected to feature a mix of live witnesses and pre-taped interviews like the first two hearings, with two of Pence's former advisors scheduled to testify in person.The committee's chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and its vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., are also expected to speak. Cheney suggested last week that the actions of attorney John Eastman, who was advising Trump on the election, will play a prominent role in the hearing.Two associates of Pence are slated to testify in person on Thursday. The first is Greg Jacob, former counsel to the vice president, who in an email on the day of the riot told Eastman, "Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege."The other witness is J. Michael Luttig, a retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit who had been an informal advisor to Pence in the lead-up to Jan. 6.Committee member Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., is expected to take a lead in Thursday's hearing.— Kevin BreuningerJan. 6 probe will ask Supreme Court justice's wife Ginni Thomas to testify 'at some point,' chairman saysWASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 21: (L-R) Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits with his wife and conservative activist Virginia Thomas while he waits to speak at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021 in Washington, DC.Drew Angerer | Getty Images News | Getty ImagesSelect committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., revealed that the panel will ask Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to speak with congressional investigators.Ginni Thomas has come under intense scrutiny in recent months following reporting on her efforts to challenge the 2020 election results — including by sending a series of frantic texts to then-President Donald Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows."We think it's time that we would, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee," Thompson told a group of journalists Thursday morning, NBC News and other outlets reported.Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., agrees that the committee should talk to Ginni Thomas, a Cheney aide told CNBC.The forthcoming invitation is based on "information we have come upon" about the conservative justice's spouse, Thompson reportedly said. He did not specify when the committee planned to send its invitation.A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.— Kevin BreuningerPence's reaction takes center stage at third hearingIn this image from video, Vice President Mike Pence speaks as the Senate reconvenes after protesters stormed into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.Senate Television via APSelect committee aides told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that the latest hearing will delve into one of Trump's theories — rejected by most top legal minds and ultimately by Pence himself — that the vice president could unilaterally refuse to count Electoral College votes from disputed states.Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, was tasked with presiding over a joint session of Congress to confirm the Electoral College results. He stoked Trump's fury when he said in a letter just before the proceedings that he cannot claim "unilateral authority" to throw out electoral votes.The nine-member committee will plans to show how Trump heaped pressure on Pence to follow this theory, and how that helped stoke the Capitol riot and "put Pence's life in danger," an aide said. The panel is also expected to unveil new material documenting Pence's moves at the Capitol as the insurrection was unfolding.— Kevin Breuninger

0 notes

mariacallous · 2 years ago

Text

The first thing that struck me in reading the executive summary of the Jan. 6 select committee’s final report last month was footnote number 50. The text it supports in the main document is the following bald statement: “As the Committee’s hearings demonstrated, President Trump made a series of statements to White House staff and others during this time period indicating his understanding that he had lost” the 2020 election.

But wait a minute, I thought as I read this. I don’t recall from the hearings Trump’s making statements indicating that he acknowledged privately that he had lost. He had seemed to me, rather, quite delusionally confident of the fraud he was alleging. Willful blindness, definitely, but actual knowledge that he had lost? I didn’t remember that.

Yet there, in footnote 50, were four different references to transcripts that the committee claimed supported the sentence:

See, e.g., Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of General Mark A. Milley (Nov. 17, 2021), p. 121; Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Alyssa Farah Griffin, (April 15, 2022), p. 62; Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Continued Interview of Cassidy Hutchinson, (Sep. 14, 2022), p. 113; Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Kellyanne Conway, (November 28, 2022), pp. 79-84.

One of them, with Kellyanne Conway, was even recent—having taken place after the hearings this summer.

I couldn’t look up the transcripts at the time because neither the full report nor the underlying material was available publicly yet. But in the weeks since, the committee has released both.

The release of the full report reveals that this remarkable claim exists only in the executive summary. The committee does not allege in the report itself that Trump acknowledged his loss in repeated conversations to staff. The underlying material, meanwhile, allows us to check up on this arresting statement allegedly made by President Trump.

So did he really admit privately he had lost? The answer, as I’ll explain, is yes-ish. But the evidence isn’t all that strong, which explains why the committee did not focus on this in its hearings or in the body of the report itself. Only one of the transcripts cited clearly supports the claim. Two sort of do, but it’s a matter of interpretation. And one—at least in my view—really does not.

It is a very rare thing for a government body to show its work to the extent the Jan. 6 committee has done in its final report.

The select committee did not just release a narrative report. It also released a huge trove of material that underlies that report. That trove includes hundreds of deposition and interview transcripts and also untold numbers of documents. The notes also navigate the reader through a giant public record, consisting of court filings, newspaper articles, public statements, and, yes, a great many tweets. It’s hundreds of thousands of pages all told.

Normally, notes in an investigative report point to interviews the reader can’t access. They point to grand jury transcripts, internal memoranda of interviews, or other materials the reader cannot simply click on and search.

But the committee here has given not just its interpretation of events and not just the raw material from which it drew its judgments, but also thousands of connections between the two. Those connections are the report’s endnotes.

It’s a powerful model for future investigative bodies, one that allows anyone to check up on the committee’s interpretation of its evidence and one that offers pointers to journalists as to where to find the good stuff in the pile of material the committee has released.

Reading the notes carefully reveals a number of different themes.

3 notes · View notes

briefnewschannel · 3 years ago

Text

Bill Barr testifies before House Jan. 6 committee about Trump election claims

Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr is seen on video during his deposition for the public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 9, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Jonathan Ernst | Reuters Former Attorney General William Barr picked apart claims of widespread fraud during his…

View On WordPress

0 notes

techvercy · 3 years ago

Text

Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee members are tightlipped on what to expect in this week's hearings

Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee members are tightlipped on what to expect in this week’s hearings

Members of the Committee attend the public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 9, 2022. Jonathan Ernst | Reuters Members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot were tightlipped about what to expect in this week’s public hearings, giving few details…

View On WordPress

0 notes

tomorrowusa · 3 years ago

Video

youtube

ICYMI, the first public hearings by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

This was nothing less than a coup attempt instigated by Donald Trump and carried out by a mixture of organized thugs and mindless MAGA zombies.

The committee presented new evidence including footage by a documentary film maker.

The introductory comments by Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS-02) were direct and eloquent. Among other things, he describes how the oath of office taken by federal officials came to include its current wording and why that’s important in the context of the January 6th coup attempt.

After Rep. Thompson’s remarks, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY-00) outlined the direction of the next five public hearings later this month.

Rep. Cheney directed this comment to Republicans who rubber-stamp Trump’s false claims:

Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Indeed, Trump won’t last forever. He’s almost 76 and maintains a diet and lifestyle which would be considered unhealthy for somebody 45 years younger. But the historical record will long preserve the lying, the grovelling, and the constitutional infidelity of Republicans who currently scramble to pander to his fantasies.

There’s much more from this first hearing, but I prefer to avoid giving out spoilers. However I will mention that there is a ten minute recess about halfway through the hearing.

Please take the time to watch it if you haven’t seen it already.

If the January 6th coup attempt was one of the worst recent moments in American democracy, this first hearing of the January 6th committee was one of the best such moments.

EDIT: By coincidence, a GOP candidate for governor of Michigan was just arrested after being identified as a participant in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

Michigan candidate for governor, Ryan Kelley, charged for Jan. 6 involvement

#select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol #donald trump #coup attempt #assault on the us capitol by pro-trump terrorists #us house of representatives #bennie thompson #liz cheney #peaceful transfer of power #caroline edwards #marcus childress #nick quested #proud boys #oath keepers #michigan #ryan kelley #republican

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Did Any Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-any-republicans-vote-to-impeach-trump/

Did Any Republicans Vote To Impeach Trump

Overview Of Impeachment Process

See also: Impeachment of federal officials

The United States Congress has the constitutional authority to impeach and remove a federal official from officeincluding the presidentif he or she has committed an impeachable offense. Impeaching and removing an official has two stages. First, articles of impeachment against the official must be passed by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, a trial is conducted in the United States Senate potentially leading to the conviction and removal of the official.

In most impeachment trials, the vice president presides over the trial. However, in impeachment trials of the president, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides. In order to remove the person from office, two-thirds of senators that are present to vote must vote to convict on the articles of impeachment.

Rep Liz Cheney Wyoming

The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack, Cheney wrote. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.

Cheney is the highest-ranking House member to vote for Trumps impeachment.

First Impeachment Of Donald Trump

First impeachment of Donald Trump Members of House of Representatives vote on two articles of impeachment Accused Donald Trump, President of the United States Proponents December 18, 2019 February 5, 2020 Outcome Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in the office of President of the United States Charges Voting in the U.S. Senate Accusation Article I Abuse of power Votes in favor Acquitted Accusation Article II Obstruction of Congress Votes in favor

A request by U.S. President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son sparked the scandal. Events

The first impeachment of Donald Trump occurred when Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives of the 116th United States Congress on December 18, 2019. The House adopted two articles of impeachment against Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted Trump of these charges on February 5, 2020.

Two days after the acquittal, Trump fired two witnesses who had testified about his conduct in the impeachment inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny Vindman was also fired.

Article Of Impeachment Introduced

has original text related to this article:Article of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump

On January 11, 2021, U.S. Representatives David Cicilline, along with Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu, introduced an article of impeachment against Trump, charging Trump with incitement of insurrection in urging his supporters to march on the Capitol building. The article contended that Trump made several statements that encouragedand foreseeably resulted inlawless action that interfered with Congress constitutional duty to certify the election. It argued that by his actions, Trump threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government, doing so in a way that rendered him a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if he were allowed to complete his term. By the time it was introduced, 218 of the 222 House Democrats had signed on as cosponsors, assuring its passage. Trump was impeached in a vote on January 13, 2021; ten Republicans, including House Republican Conference chairwoman Liz Cheney, joined all of the Democrats in supporting the article.

United States V Nixon Ruling

In a much-anticipated landmark ruling on July 24, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to release all White House tapes, not just selected transcripts, pertinent to the Watergate investigation. The unanimous ruling in United States v. Nixon found that the president of the United States does not possess an absolute, unqualified executive privilege to withhold information. Writing for the court, Chief JusticeWarren Burger stated:

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

A short while after the decision was made public, Nixon issued a statement saying that, while disappointed in the result, I respect and accept the courts decision, and I have instructed Mr. St. Clair to take whatever measures are necessary to comply with that decision in all respects. The president was at the Western White House in California at the time, where he remained through July 28.

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington State said that she would vote to impeach because she believed that the president had acted in violation of his oath of office.

I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she said. But I am a Republican voter. I believe in our Constitution, individual liberty, free markets, charity, life, justice, peace and this exceptional country. I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

Gop Leader Mccarthy: Trump ‘bears Responsibility’ For Violence Won’t Vote To Impeach

Some ambitious Republican senators have never been as on board the Trump train as the more feverish GOP members in the House, and the former might be open to convicting Trump. But their ambition cuts two ways on the one hand, voting to ban Trump opens a lane to carry the Republican mantle in 2024 and be the party’s new standard-bearer, but, on the other, it has the potential to alienate many of the 74 million who voted for Trump, and whose votes they need.

It’s a long shot that Trump would ultimately be convicted, because 17 Republicans would need to join Democrats to get the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction. But it’s growing clearer that a majority of the Senate will vote to convict him, reflecting the number of Americans who are in favor of impeachment, disapproved of the job Trump has done and voted for his opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Correction Jan. 14, 2021

A previous version of this story incorrectly said Rep. Peter Meijer is a West Point graduate. Meijer attended West Point, but he is a graduate of Columbia University.

Republicans Vote To Convict Trump In Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON Seven Republicans voted Saturday to convict former President Donald Trump in his Senate trial, easily the largest number of lawmakers to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty at impeachment proceedings.

While lawmakers acquitted Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, they voted 57-43 to convict him short of the two-thirds majority needed to find him guilty. Still, with seven Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in voting guilty, the Senate issued an unmistakable bipartisan chorus of condemnation of the former president that could have political implications for a GOP conflicted over its future.

If I cant say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me? Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told reporters.

Besides Murkowski, other Republican senators voting against Trump were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Underscoring the perils of affronting Trump and his legions of GOP loyalists, by late evening top Republicans from at least two of the defecting senators states had blasted them.

Most of the defecting Republicans had clashed with Trump over the years. Burr and Toomey have said they will retire and not seek reelection when their terms expire next year, and Murkowski and Collins have histories of clashing with Trump over health care and other policies.

Presidents Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws

On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled The Presidents Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, I didnt mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing. Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment as he accused Obama of claim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.

Susan Collins Of Maine

Ms. Collins, 68, a senator since 1997, was just re-elected to a fifth term. She has long been critical of Mr. Trumps actions, extending to the Capitol riot.

That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence, Ms. Collins said on the Senate floor after the vote. Rather it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.

Fate Of 10 Gop Impeachers Since Capitol Riot Shows ‘going Against Trump Is The Death Knell’

The 10 Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach President Donald Trump for his role in instigating the mob that marauded through the Capitol on January 6 knew the riot would be a historic turning point for the country. What they didn’t realize: The events of that day might also mark the beginning of the end of their own political careers, and that their actions would give Trump and politicians loyal to him a rallying cry to help them retain control of the Republican Party.

Six months after the riot, the impeachers are the GOP’s most endangered incumbents. Nine of the 10 already face credible primary challengers ahead of next year’s midterm elections, and all have been the targets of relentless attacks from Trump and his supporters, as well as on social media from once-supportive constituents livid about their impeachment vote. Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, stripped of her leadership role in the House for her persistent criticism of the former president, has absorbed the most venom. But Trump seems bent on exacting revenge on the entire group, calling out the names of each of the GOP representatives who voted to impeach him one by one in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, then telling the audience: “Get rid of them all.”

“If any of the 10 are up against a primary challenger who’s a Trumper and who can breathe, walk and talk at the same time, they’re gonna lose.”

Trumps Ready To Fight

Fox News reports that the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump that isnt facing a primary challenger is Rep. John Katko .

They write that Katko appeared to get back into good graces with GOP leadership quickly after his impeachment vote and noted he was one of the faces of a border trip with House Republicans earlier this year.

He did, however, join Cheney, Kinzinger, and the other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, in also voting to establish a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol protests.

Supporters of a Jan. 6 commission are settling on a backup plan to fully probe the Capitol attack: a select House committee

But theyre worried that even in a best-case scenario, itll become a total circus. New from me:https://t.co/uGbsdGKcbX

Sam Brodey June 7, 2021

In April, CNBC revealed that Trumps leadership PAC Save America has $85 million on hand heading into the midterms, something one person with knowledge of the matter describes as a gargantuan sum of cash.

Another report indicates Trump is teaming up with Newt Gingrich on a new MAGA doctrine for the Republican Party, using the famed Contract with America as a framework.

With an eye toward winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, Donald Trump has begun crafting a policy agenda outlining a MAGA doctrine.

And hes teaming up with Newt Gingrich to do it. https://t.co/TpXUUGUQHP

POLITICO May 26, 2021

Read this NextonThePoliticalInsider.com

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

Rep Tom Rice South Carolina

Rep. Tom Rice, representing South Carolinas 7th Congressional District, voted to impeach Trump, though he had not spoken out publicly about his decision prior to the vote.

In a statement after the vote Wednesday, Rice said he was not sure whether Trumps speech before the mobs attack amounted to incitement of a riot, but any reasonable person could see the potential for violence.

Once the violence began, when the Capitol was under siege, when the Capitol Police were being beaten and killed, and when the Vice President and the Congress were being locked down, the President was watching and tweeted about the Vice Presidents lack of courage, Rice wrote.

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Opinion: Democrats Missed The Boat With 17 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump

This message is for all the Democrats who criticized the 191 Republican representatives who did not vote to impeach Donald Trump and the 43 Republican senators who did not vote guilty.

Its easy, even justified, to say they acted cowardly and disregarded the plain facts, but we have since witnessed the wrath of the Republican Party.

For the 10 representatives and seven senators who voted to hold Trump accountable, their state party organizations have either censured them, or are planning to run primary candidates against them, or both. These 17 men and women are pariahs in their own party.

More:Ohio House Republicans plan to talk about expelling indicted Rep. Larry Householder

Its easy to be virtuous and criticize others, but how many of us have been tested in this way? Put aside that the Republican Partys rancor is unjustified, these 17 men and women have suffered the consequences of voting against their party. This episode should be a learning point for Democrats as to what will be expected of them in the future.

Its only a matter of time before the tables are turned.

More:Gonzalez joins Democrats in call to impeach Trump. Here’s how local representatives voted

In a perfect world, perhaps we should expect more politicians to stand fast to principle and disregard the consequences. But our world is far from perfect. Maybe the better approach is to commend these lonely 17 Republicans. They presented if just for a moment a light in a dark world.

‘a Win Is A Win’: Trump’s Defense Team Makes Remarks After Senate Votes To Acquit

Despite the acquittal, President Joe Biden said in a statement that “substance of the charge” against Trump is “not in dispute.”

“Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol,” Biden’s statement read in part.

The president added that “this sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Saturday’s vote the largest and most bipartisan vote in any impeachment trial in history,” but noted it wasn’t enough to secure a conviction.

The trial “was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate split 50-50, the House managers always had an uphill battle when it came to convincing enough Republicans to cross party lines and convict a former president who is still very popular with a large part of the GOP base.

Richard M Burr Of North Carolina

Mr. Burr, 65, a senator since 2005, is not seeking re-election in 2022. Despite holding Mr. Trump immediately responsible for the Capitol riot, he had voted against moving forward with the impeachment trial, and his decision to convict came as a surprise.

As I said on Jan. 6, the president bears responsibility for these tragic events, Mr. Burr said in a statement on Saturday. The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government and that the charge rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Therefore, I have voted to convict.

Gop Congresswoman On Voting To Impeach Trump: I Felt Like I Had To

January 17, 2021 / 9:55 AM / CBS News

The atmosphere on the House floor was tense, as members argued over whether President Trump should be impeached for his role in the assault on the United States Capitol:

“If inciting a deadly insurrection is not enough to get a president impeached, then what is?” asked Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas.

“The president didn’t even mention violence last Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it,” said Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. “You have created a mockery out of the impeachment process.”

Only four times in American history has Congress impeached a president.

1868: Andrew Johnson, for breaking a law that barred him from firing his Secretary of War.

1998: Bill Clinton, for lying under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

2019: Donald Trump , for abuse of power withholding military aid in an effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Biden family.

2021: Mr. Trump, once again.

Correspondent Rita Braver asked, “Where do you think this impeachment will go down in history, in terms of the seriousness of the offense?”

“This impeachment levels the most egregious charge ever made against a U.S. president summoning a mob to the capital, and then inciting that mob to commit insurrection,” said history professor Allan Lichtman of American University. He said the vote in favor of impeachment was stunning because ten members of the president’s own party the most of any impeachment in history voted “yes.”

Here Are The 10 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump Over The Capitol Siege

10 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump after the US Capitol siege.

On Wednesday, the House voted 232-197 to charge Trump with inciting the January 6 insurrection on the US Capitol.

New York Rep. John Katko became the first member of his party to publicly support impeachment, and he was closely followed by Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the third highest-ranking House Republican.

Visit Business Insiders homepage for more stories.

On Wednesday, 10 House Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues to vote for President Donald Trumps impeachment after he incited a deadly riot at the US Capitol last week.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against Trump on Wednesday and charged him 232-197 with incitement of insurrection.The New York Times reported that the White House expected roughly two dozen Republicans in both chambers to break ranks and come out in support of impeachment.

Trump saw far more defection from his party than in his first House impeachment in December 2019, when no members of the GOP caucus voted to impeach him on charges of abusing his office and obstructing Congress.

All 10 Republicans who voted to impeach released forceful statements directly denouncing Trumps provocation of the January 6 violence and his lack of response to the danger to the Capitol.

Trump Acquitted In Impeachment Trial; 7 Gop Senators Vote With Democrats To Convict

The Senate on Saturday voted to acquit former President Donald Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection despite significant Republican support for conviction, bringing an end to the fourth impeachment trial in U.S. history and the second for Trump.

Seven Republicans voted to convict Trump for allegedly inciting the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, when a mob of pro-Trump supporters tried to disrupt the electoral vote count formalizing Joe Biden’s election win before a joint session of Congress. That is by far the most bipartisan support for conviction in impeachment history. The final vote was 57 to 43, 10 short of the 67 votes needed to secure a conviction.

Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted guilty.

The vote means the Senate cannot bar Trump from holding future federal offices.

Moments after the vote concluded, the former president issued a statement praising his legal team and thanking the senators and other members of Congress “who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country.”

“This has been yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country. No president has ever gone through anything like it,” Trump said.

Rep Jaime Herrera Beutler Washington

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washingtons 3rd Congressional District criticized both the presidents rhetoric, which she said incited the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, as well as his actions during the violence.

Hours went by before the president did anything meaningful to stop the attack. Instead, he and his lawyer were busy making calls to senators who were still in lockdown, seeking their support to further delay the Electoral College certification, she claimed.

Herrera Beutler also cited Trumps speech in response to the attack, during which he told his supporters you are very special and we love you, while also asking them for peace.

Alabama Gop Says Trump Impeachment A Sad Day For America; Lone Democrat Votes To Charge President

Members walk on the floor as voting begins in the House of Representatives in the first article of impeachment against President Donald Trump at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019. APAP

President Trump became the third president to be impeached Wednesday after the House approved two articles of impeachment abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in a vote that went largely along party lines.

Alabamas House members voted in line with their political parties, with the states lone Democrat voting to impeach Trump while the other six Republican members voted against the articles of impeachment.

The articles of impeachment stemmed from a whistleblower complaint that Trump sought to withhold congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden. Joe Biden is running for president in 2020 and is considered to be one of Trumps main Democratic rivals.

Three House members from Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Saks; and Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Fairhope gave speeches on the House floor earlier Wednesday in explaining how they would vote.

Sewell said she was supporting impeachment with a heavy heart.

In his floor speech, Rogers said the Democrats along with their cohorts in the Deep State and the mainstream media tried to hijack our Constitution.

Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Hoover, said Democrats did not make a case for impeaching Trump.

0 notes