Jan 6 Hearings

frazzdaddy

caliking said:

BuckeyeFork said:

Keep bleating, it lets me know where you are.

You should put that on a tshirt for the next MAGAt party

Wonder how many “whitemanistan”tours he has under his elastic belt?

Gulfcoastguy

Well now Liz has nothing to lose.

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1565741592052473858

Whoopsie.

Canugghead

https://twitter.com/CBCOttawa/status/1566405116219068421?s=20&t=VpOkaOU5CN5UWioeuzmVGg

Surprising eh 

Canugghead

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1567475759798788097?s=20&t=OzeWLhfbxMIc7atKaMtCsw

HeavyG

"Who's the moron now?!" she said.

lousubcap

How the DOJ will challenge the Judge Cannon's on the seizure at Mara ruling:

"DOJ TO TRUMP: YOU CAN HAVE YOUR STUFF BACK, BUT NOT OUR STUFF — As expected, the Justice Department said on Thursday that it will likely move forward with an appeal of Judge AILEEN CANNON’s recent decision largely blocking DOJ’s use of materials seized at Mar-a-Lago and appointing a special master.

But in the meantime, the government tried a new approach to convince Cannon to rethink her recent decision.

Imagine that someone allegedly stole a sack of diamonds from a jewelry shop and then stashed the gems in junk drawers around their house. The cops raid the place, take away everything in the drawers where they find stolen diamonds, and spend two weeks separating them from the junk. Then a judge comes along and says that the big issue in the case isn’t the stolen diamonds but that the cops still have some of the alleged thief’s personal belongings. She halts the heist investigation until an outside expert can sort the gems from the junk. The government thinks the judge’s decision is absurd — no other suspect has received this special treatment — but they offer the judge a compromise: let us keep all of the diamonds, and we’ll return all of the alleged thief’s junk, even a few cheap watches that they think he might have swiped from the store.

In a 21-page filing yesterday, that is essentially the deal DOJ offered Cannon: The government would get to hold onto and continue to use the 100 classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, material that Justice lawyers noted “indisputably belong to the government, not Plaintiff,” and they’ll give DONALD TRUMP “copies of all unclassified documents recovered during the search — both personal records and government records” and return Trump’s “personal items that were not commingled with classified records.” (The details of that plan will be spelled out in a filing today.)

DOJ offered Cannon three arguments for why she should accept the deal:

1. If she doesn’t, DOJ will prevail in its appeal anyway, because no court could possibly conclude that Trump owns the 100 classified records, has a right to have them back or has any attorney-client or executive privilege claims that would prevent prosecutors from using them in their criminal investigation.

2. The judge’s order has threatened national security. The court’s ban on DOJ’s use of the records, the government said, has stymied the intelligence community’s “national security risk assessment of the possible unauthorized disclosure of the classified records and any harm that may have resulted” because the intelligence assessment is “inextricably linked” with the FBI’s criminal investigation. Cannon herself said she wanted that review to continue but the IC can’t do it without the cooperation of the FBI, which she seemingly banned from the process. The key here is that the IC needs to know if the classified documents “may have been accessed by others and compromised,” which is precisely what the FBI is investigating in its criminal probe.

3. Excluding the 100 classified documents from the special master process will cause no harm to Trump.

The offer to Cannon presents her with a difficult choice. Her opinion was criticized for failing to fully grapple with the government’s argument that Trump doesn’t own the classified documents he stored at Mar-a-Lago. She lumped all of the seized property together as potentially Trump’s, and gave enormous weight to the argument that any of the documents seized could potentially be subject to privilege claims. She was essentially saying that DOJ couldn’t be trusted and that the special master should sort things out.

From what we’ve seen so far, our bet is that Cannon doesn’t accept this deal outright. Doing so would require her to reverse arguments that she’s already made about potential privilege claims and her (widely criticized) position that Trump could suffer irreparable harm from the investigation itself.

What might be more difficult for her to ignore is the government’s new argument (number two above) that her order has halted the IC’s review and thus has serious national security implications.

Either way, this is an aggressive move by Justice. They are going forward with an appeal, despite the risk of cementing an awful precedent or getting an even worse ruling from an appeals court dominated by Trump appointees, and they are daring Cannon to double down on arguments that legal analysts on the right and left have scoffed at."

HeavyG

An interesting thread about Judge Cannon. It's a shame that ideology outranks competency so often.

https://twitter.com/PeterVroom1/status/1567676844203249664

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

An interesting thread about Judge Cannon. It's a shame that ideology outranks competency so often.

Agreed, but when it comes to seats on the federal judiciary, only one party seems to really be actively engaged in this kind of thing.  

nolaegghead

Because political affiliations result in political activism and the irony here is that a judge can’t be an activist in the eyes of the federalist society and conservative grampas who yearn for a world modeled like “Leave it to Beaver” unless they promote progressive judicial decisions.  This is one reason why laws can’t keep up with technology and modern society.  

lousubcap

"A congressional briefing to get a damage assessment of the classified documents seized during the Mar-a-Lago raid is on hold after Judge Cannon granted Trump’s request last week to appoint a special master. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) told CBS “Face the Nation” moderate Margaret Brennan that “there is some question because of the special master appointment by the judge in Florida whether they can brief at this point.” “We need clarification on that from that judge as quickly as possible because it is essential that the intelligence community, leadership at least, get a briefing of the damage assessment,” he said. Rema Rehman reports for The Hill. 

Judge Cannon’s decision to grant Trump’s request for a special master to review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, has placed her under increased scrutiny, raising questions about the appointment of judges with limited experience. Former senator Russ Feingold — who leads the liberal American Constitution Society, which closely tracks judicial nominations — said Trump and his Republican allies in the Senate sought out judicial nominees like Cannon, showing an “overwhelming preference” for individuals often lacking the experience “previously considered necessary to sit on the bench.” “We’re now seeing the impact of this, with an alarming disregard of the rule of law by some,” he said in a statement. Ann E. Marimow provides analysis for the Washington Post. "

lousubcap

Taken from an article I posted here (written by Tom Nichols) last week but merits more exposure.  
OT subject but worth a main-stream read- OT News Feeds...  

"Last week, my colleague Pete Wehner—a man of greater faith and patience than I could ever hope to be—wrote this in The Atlantic:

But even though we shouldn’t give up on individuals, I can’t escape concluding that the time for mollifying grievances is over. In our political endeavors, the task is now to contain and defeat the MAGA movement, shifting away from a model of psychological amelioration and toward a model of political confrontation.

Contain and defeat. If we really are to be partisans of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and basic decency, then this is a painful truth. Policy has its limits. Negotiations must be grounded in not only good faith but reality, and not lies or myths.

The demands of extremists are meant to be impossible to fulfill: America must convert to Islam, Ukraine must accept Moscow’s rule, the election must be overturned and Mike Pence hanged. People issuing such demands are not interested in discussion or compromise; indeed, they’d be disappointed if they got what they wanted, because their anger sustains them and gives meaning to their lives. When faced with such movements and their demands, there is only one response: Contain and defeat."

fishlessman

the balls of the fbi not removing their shoes in trumps residency..........

HeavyG

fishlessman said:

the balls of the fbi not removing their shoes in trumps residency..........

Simple way of establishing dominance.

lousubcap

Another Tom Nichols read from The Atlantic-worth a look:
Commentary on Cheeto's latest rally-

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/09/trumps-new-recruits/671480/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220919&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily

lousubcap

Plan now to either catch it live or recorded:  
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack will hold a hearing next week, committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) has said. The hearing will take place on Sept. 28 at 1 pm EST.  As of now, the hearing, which has not been formally announced by the committee, will mark the panel's last until it releases its final report, which is expected by the end of the year. "I can say that unless something else develops, this hearing at this point is the final hearing. But it's not in stone because things happen," Thompson said. The theme of the hearing will be one the panel has not previously explored, he added. Annie Grayer reports for CNN.

lousubcap

If the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack makes a criminal referral for Trump it should be made unanimously, panel member Rep. Adam Schiff has said. "We operate with a high degree of consensus and unanimity," the California Democrat said yesterday. "It will be certainly, I think, my recommendation, my feeling, that we should make referrals, but we will get to a decision as a committee, and we will all abide by that decision, and I will join our committee members if they feel differently." It has previously been reported that whilst the committee is in wide agreement that Trump committed a crime in relation to the Jan. 6 attack, they are split on whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Daniella Diaz and Devan Cole report for CNN. 

fishlessman

lousubcap said:

If the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack makes a criminal referral for Trump it should be made unanimously, panel member Rep. Adam Schiff has said. "We operate with a high degree of consensus and unanimity," the California Democrat said yesterday. "It will be certainly, I think, my recommendation, my feeling, that we should make referrals, but we will get to a decision as a committee, and we will all abide by that decision, and I will join our committee members if they feel differently." It has previously been reported that whilst the committee is in wide agreement that Trump committed a crime in relation to the Jan. 6 attack, they are split on whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Daniella Diaz and Devan Cole report for CNN. 

maybe this is an out clause, not so sure what would happen if he is found guilty and sent off to jail.  i really dont want to find out if jan 6 was just a trailer for things to come

Botch

This segment aired last night.  Well worth 14 minutes of your time.
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-riggleman-60-minutes-2022-09-25/

nolaegghead

fishlessman said:

lousubcap said:

If the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack makes a criminal referral for Trump it should be made unanimously, panel member Rep. Adam Schiff has said. "We operate with a high degree of consensus and unanimity," the California Democrat said yesterday. "It will be certainly, I think, my recommendation, my feeling, that we should make referrals, but we will get to a decision as a committee, and we will all abide by that decision, and I will join our committee members if they feel differently." It has previously been reported that whilst the committee is in wide agreement that Trump committed a crime in relation to the Jan. 6 attack, they are split on whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Daniella Diaz and Devan Cole report for CNN. 

maybe this is an out clause, not so sure what would happen if he is found guilty and sent off to jail.  i really dont want to find out if jan 6 was just a trailer for things to come

I would probably celebrate for a week straight then buy more guns and ammo because a very large number of “good guys with guns” will be turning into terrorists.

fishlessman

nolaegghead said:

fishlessman said:

lousubcap said:

If the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack makes a criminal referral for Trump it should be made unanimously, panel member Rep. Adam Schiff has said. "We operate with a high degree of consensus and unanimity," the California Democrat said yesterday. "It will be certainly, I think, my recommendation, my feeling, that we should make referrals, but we will get to a decision as a committee, and we will all abide by that decision, and I will join our committee members if they feel differently." It has previously been reported that whilst the committee is in wide agreement that Trump committed a crime in relation to the Jan. 6 attack, they are split on whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Daniella Diaz and Devan Cole report for CNN. 

maybe this is an out clause, not so sure what would happen if he is found guilty and sent off to jail.  i really dont want to find out if jan 6 was just a trailer for things to come

I would probably celebrate for a week straight then buy more guns and ammo because a very large number of “good guys with guns” will be turning into terrorists.

I would prefer not seeing the crap hit the fan but my old frat house has abunker and booze and they went coed

lousubcap

The Wednesday (9/28) hearing has been postponed.  So everyone can stand down for now.  But...it's still lurking

Botch

Denver may have stolen their thunder.  

Botch

I get a daily email from Robert Reich, which I usually enjoy reading.  Got this this afternoon:
 

In a post here on September 8, I asked the billionaires who are bankrolling candidates who have tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election how they rationalize spending their fortunes financing insurrection.

I specifically included Peter Thiel, Stephen Schwarzman, Steve Wynn, Patrick Byrne, and Ken Griffin in my question.

Ken Griffin, the multi-billion-dollar CEO of the hedge fund Citadel, is the only one to respond so far — yesterday, in a tart letter to the Guardian (where I had subsequently published my post). 

His arguments: (1) His campaign contributions are “principled” because he “proudly” spends his money to support politicians whose ideas “will secure a better future for America” – and he “encourages others to do the same,” and (2) the Democratic party has given generous support to Maga Republican candidates to defeat moderate Republican candidates, which is “hypocritical and cynical.”

This is a bit like the captain of the Titanic criticizing the iceberg.

Mr. Griffin, when you say your campaign contributions are “principled,” what principle are you referring to?

You’ve poured millions into the campaigns of people who refused to certify the 2020 election -- including Florida Senator Rick Scott, and Reps. Mike Bost of Illinois, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Devin Nunes and Darrell Issa from California and Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma.

What makes you think these people will “secure a better future for America” when they wouldn’t certify an election, based on nothing other than their political party’s preference?

You were the only donor to a $3.5 million group backing defeated Rep. Rodney Davis in his GOP primary. Davis refused to participate in the January 6 committeebecause House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rejected two of his most extreme Republican colleagues.

On what “principle” was Davis worth $3.5 million from you?

Please don’t claim that “others can do the same” as you when it comes to flooding American politics with money.

You’re worth $29.8 billion.

You’re the single biggest spender in Republican politics. Last year, you pumped more than $28 million into the GOP, and you’re expected to multiply that number leading into November’s midterms.

I don’t approve of the Democratic party giving financial support to extreme Maga Republican candidates, but that’s irrelevant to my point.

I’m talking about billionaires like you, who continue to finance Trump’s insurrection.

You’re part of this. You still haven’t justified why you’re spending your fortune this way. Please get back to me as soon as you can.

FWIW.  

lousubcap

@Botch- Please post for the forum (or PM me) the link to Reich's feed.  The more the merrier insights that I inhale on a daily basis.  TIA-

Botch

Cap'n, I don't have a link, it was an email and I posted the whole thing.  He's a columnist for the WaPo but there's no reference there (??) and I've deleted facebook a few days ago (he has a presence there too).
 
Just found an older email from him, with a link to a website, hopefully you can find it there:
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-truth-im-telling-congress-today-cc7?utm_source=email   (not the same article, but you may be able to find it there, let me know if not).  

lousubcap

@Botch your provided link allowed me to signup.  We will see what I get.  Thanks for your diligence here.  

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1575534332139085826

https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1575524792622776322

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1574411744734158848?s=20&t=7BxaRXCxMUfo-bunx8CfTg