January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hodgkins got 8 months in prison.

Too long.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

Probation for trying to violently overthrow the government?

Didn't I say violent ones deserve jail time?  Yes, yes I did.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

Probation for trying to violently overthrow the government?

Didn't I say violent ones deserve jail time?  Yes, yes I did.

They were all violent. At best you could argue that this terrorist only intended to come in the Capitol to yell, scream, and threaten Congressmen into overturning the election while not being willing to throw any punches or pull any triggers himself, but considering how he knowingly and willingly went in there with people who were willing to go all the way, is that really a convincing argument? I think not. We all know what his intentions were.

Uh, no, they were not all violent.  Many were arrested after the fact just for being outside of the buildings but on the grounds. I'm in favor of punishing for what they did, not what any of us think their intentions were.  If they committed violence or damaged property, jail time. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

Probation for trying to violently overthrow the government?

Didn't I say violent ones deserve jail time?  Yes, yes I did.

They were all violent. At best you could argue that this terrorist only intended to come in the Capitol to yell, scream, and threaten Congressmen into overturning the election while not being willing to throw any punches or pull any triggers himself, but considering how he knowingly and willingly went in there with people who were willing to go all the way, is that really a convincing argument? I think not. We all know what his intentions were.

Uh, no, they were not all violent.  Many were arrested after the fact just for being outside of the buildings but on the grounds. I'm in favor of punishing for what they did, not what any of us think their intentions were.  If they committed violence or damaged property, jail time.  

Yes, you already so opined Grumps, so no need to repeat when there is Joe Republic's rope thing (see above) twisting, twisting slowly in the wind for you to contend with. Is that just his fashion accessory of choice?

I have no reason to respond to Joe's post. There were lots of crazy photos of that day.  As you mentioned, I've repeated for the umpteenth time what I think are the criteria for being jailed. Maybe this guy did one or both of those things.  I don't know.  I'm not advocating for probation for him. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

Probation for trying to violently overthrow the government?

Didn't I say violent ones deserve jail time?  Yes, yes I did.

They were all violent. At best you could argue that this terrorist only intended to come in the Capitol to yell, scream, and threaten Congressmen into overturning the election while not being willing to throw any punches or pull any triggers himself, but considering how he knowingly and willingly went in there with people who were willing to go all the way, is that really a convincing argument? I think not. We all know what his intentions were.

Uh, no, they were not all violent.  Many were arrested after the fact just for being outside of the buildings but on the grounds. I'm in favor of punishing for what they did, not what any of us think their intentions were.  If they committed violence or damaged property, jail time.  

Yes, you already so opined Grumps, so no need to repeat when there is Joe Republic's rope thing (see above) twisting, twisting slowly in the wind for you to contend with. Is that just his fashion accessory of choice?

I have no reason to respond to Joe's post. There were lots of crazy photos of that day.  As you mentioned, I've repeated for the umpteenth time what I think are the criteria for being jailed. Maybe this guy did one or both of those things.  I don't know.  I'm not advocating for probation for him. 

Well let's try to finesse away your fixation with cells for a moment, and frame the issue another way. Do you think the guy running around with a rope in his hands is in and of itself an exacerbating fact?

No doubt the Judge saw it as such, and that's why he's going to the cooler.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless they hurt someone or damaged property, probation sounds fine for the rest.

Probation for trying to violently overthrow the government?

Didn't I say violent ones deserve jail time?  Yes, yes I did.

They were all violent. At best you could argue that this terrorist only intended to come in the Capitol to yell, scream, and threaten Congressmen into overturning the election while not being willing to throw any punches or pull any triggers himself, but considering how he knowingly and willingly went in there with people who were willing to go all the way, is that really a convincing argument? I think not. We all know what his intentions were.

Uh, no, they were not all violent.  Many were arrested after the fact just for being outside of the buildings but on the grounds. I'm in favor of punishing for what they did, not what any of us think their intentions were.  If they committed violence or damaged property, jail time.  

Yes, you already so opined Grumps, so no need to repeat when there is Joe Republic's rope thing (see above) twisting, twisting slowly in the wind for you to contend with. Is that just his fashion accessory of choice?

I have no reason to respond to Joe's post. There were lots of crazy photos of that day.  As you mentioned, I've repeated for the umpteenth time what I think are the criteria for being jailed. Maybe this guy did one or both of those things.  I don't know.  I'm not advocating for probation for him. 

Well let's try to finesse away your fixation with cells for a moment, and frame the issue another way. Do you think the guy running around with a rope in his hands is in and of itself an exacerbating fact?

No doubt the Judge saw it as such, and that's why he's going to the cooler.

That is a very legalistic and evasive answer. I think I may have had a bad influence on you. Sad!

Oh I've learned a lot from you and a couple of other friends outside of here. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pelosi has rejected Banks and Jordan

I'm sure McCarthy put them up just so that would happen.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pelosi's select committee will be a giant waste of money and nothing useful will come out of it.  There will be lots of ignored subpoenas too.  Grab some popcorn.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pelosi's select committee will be a giant waste of money and nothing useful will come out of it.  There will be lots of ignored subpoenas too.  Grab some popcorn.

This isn't even about Pelosi it's about finding out the details of who organized an attack on the Capitol. Real Americans deserve more answers.

I'm not sure you'll get more, Doc.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

These loonies will subpoena Trump but he's not showing and they'll have to take it all the way to SCOTUS to push the matter.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh, good, the nothingburger hearings have started!  Popcorn - check.  Bourbon - check.  I'm ready!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh, good, the nothingburger hearings have started!  Popcorn - check.  Bourbon - check.  I'm ready!

I'm sure you still want Benghazi hearings though.

Most hearings are snoozers and a waste of time and money.  No, didn't want them or watch them.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm glad US Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell isn't walking a beat in the Bronx. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

For the people convicted of the January 6 coup....do they lose the right to vote in future elections?

It wasn't a coup, so no.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Lawsuits against Presidents who were claimed to have done something while serving as President have never gone anywhere.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A federal judge ordered this video released over prosecutors objections as they felt it was a national security risk.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1441008337882071048

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A federal judge ordered this video released over prosecutors objections as they felt it was a national security risk.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1441008337882071048

And?
What's your point?
Also, I have seen that video plenty of times in the past. Nothing new.

The point is not everyone there was there for a coup attempt.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Did any punishment befall Bannon?

I highly doubt these top Trump associates will comply with their subpoenas.

Nope. Garland didn't do a thing like the inept wimp he is.

There's no way a decision has been made on Bannon already. No matter who was AG, we would still be waiting. 

This is correct.  Wayyyyyyyyy to early to tell what Garland will do.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This particular old lawyer is flummoxed as to why a court is not involved here. It seems to me that Meadows etc could state that  they will not invoke executive privilege unless a court so enjoins him to pursuant to a Trump filed lawsuit within say 30 days. Or he could state to Congress that it should get a court order stating that executive privilege does not apply and compelling him to testify not invoking it. It seems ridiculous and very unfair to put a witness in criminal jeopardy over a dispute about the scope of executive privilege without having a court issue a ruling first.

Am I missing something here?

It's been pointed out by some of the national security lawyers on Twitter that any of the subpoenaed people could file suit to quash their subpoena -- which would at a minimum protect them from criminal contempt charges while the suit was being resolved.  However, none of them has filed such a suit.

Thanks.  Myself, I don't think it reasonable to incur the attorney's fees to do that, so my approach if subpoenaed would be to state that I would honor it if not quashed pursuant to someone else's lawsuit with a given period of time.

Not that it matters, but I think the executive privilege claims are ludicrous, and wonder what the exposure would be to a witness for ignoring such claims absent a court order, assuming much to my shock and amazement that a court disagrees with my opinion.

Has Pence been asked to testify by the way?

Not yet, but his Chief of Staff is cooperating with the Committee.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I just found a squib on that:

https://abc7ny.com/pences-former-chief-of-staff-subpoenaed-by-jan-6-committee/11306693/

I would anticipate him being 100% loyal to Pence and nothing to Trump. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This particular old lawyer is flummoxed as to why a court is not involved here. It seems to me that Meadows etc could state that  they will not invoke executive privilege unless a court so enjoins him to pursuant to a Trump filed lawsuit within say 30 days. Or he could state to Congress that it should get a court order stating that executive privilege does not apply and compelling him to testify not invoking it. It seems ridiculous and very unfair to put a witness in criminal jeopardy over a dispute about the scope of executive privilege without having a court issue a ruling first.

Am I missing something here?

https://twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/1469005189294268430

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This particular old lawyer is flummoxed as to why a court is not involved here. It seems to me that Meadows etc could state that  they will not invoke executive privilege unless a court so enjoins him to pursuant to a Trump filed lawsuit within say 30 days. Or he could state to Congress that it should get a court order stating that executive privilege does not apply and compelling him to testify not invoking it. It seems ridiculous and very unfair to put a witness in criminal jeopardy over a dispute about the scope of executive privilege without having a court issue a ruling first.

Am I missing something here?

https://twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/1469005189294268430

Thanks Grumps. Is it just me, or has the world just gone stark raving mad on so many fronts?

Crazy times, Brother

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1473066239887089667

Predictably, Perry has declined to cooperate voluntarily.  The question now is whether the committee will attempt to subpoena a fellow member of Congress.

Have they ever done so in the past?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1473066239887089667

Predictably, Perry has declined to cooperate voluntarily.  The question now is whether the committee will attempt to subpoena a fellow member of Congress.

Have they ever done so in the past?

Not that I know of, but I wouldn't swear that there never have been.  I know that some staff members of sitting Congressmen have been subpoenaed in the past and testified.

That's what I thought.  But he's declined so we will see what's next.