January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its similar to an impeachment inquiry, the Rs aren't gonna cooperate they already went thru 2 impeachment inquiries already

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

[Torie]

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?

[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.

[Torie]

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.

I just found a squib on that:

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

[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. 

[GeorgiaModerate]

Roger Stone's attorney has advised the January 6 committee that Stone intends to plead the Fifth Amendment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I said before this is to RS another impeachment inquiry they're not gonna give testimony to Committee just like they did during two impeachments, both of them failed miserably, the Ds didn't have enough evidence

Graham said don't impeach Trump on Ukraine phone call

[emailking]

January 6 committee says it is moving forward with criminal contempt for Mark Meadows

The House select committee investigating the January 6 riot informed Mark Meadows that they have "no choice" but to advance criminal contempt proceedings against him given that former President Donald Trump's former chief of staff has decided to no longer cooperate with the panel, according to a new letter.

"The Select Committee is left with no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution," committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat wrote in a letter dated December 7.

The letter also reveals new details about the previous correspondence between the two parties, and shares for the first time in greater detail what information Meadows had voluntarily turned over to the committee.

Prior to Meadows' decision to halt cooperation with the committee, he had turned over approximately 6,000 pages worth of documents to the panel. Among those pages, Thompson reveals that Meadows supplied the committee with significant information from both his personal email account and personal cell phone that are relevant to the committee's investigation.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/mark-meadows-contempt-congress/index.html

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

Update: Mark Meadows has filed suit to quash his subpoenas.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I'm glad, it's happening, because I think, it will hurt Dems in midterms. Don't be surprised when you get polls like this one

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

(A+)-rated ABC News/The Washington Post

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/417a5111-a75e-4efb-b100-f1f10f164fb1/note/0bb59958-b21c-4aad-b458-076ce686873c.

Nov. 7-10
1,001 Adults

Adults:
41 (-3 since AUG 29-SEP 1)
53 (+2)
Strongly:
19 (-6)
44 (+2)

RV: 38/57  - Ouch
Strongly: 19/48


Economy:
Adults: 39/55
RV: 38/59

Covid:
Adults: 47/49
RV: 45/52


GB:
Adults: R 46 (+3)
RV: R 51 (+10)

 when Dems priority is Bannon circus and not bread-and-butter issues.

BTW, Bannon likely knew, that was coming, LMAO. It's more like political show for him, where is an actor who will perform an act.

Told ya.He'll put on hell of a show.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1460332838063120388

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1468679817298165762

Well, of course, lmao.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/steve-bannon-is-sabotaging-the-jan-6-probe-joshua-green
Steve Bannon Is Sabotaging the Jan. 6 Probe

On Tuesday, a federal judge set Steve Bannon’s trial date for next July in his contempt of Congress case for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 committee. That’s sooner than the October date his lawyers asked for, but it’s still a big blow to the government and the committee, which wanted to move quickly to make an example of Bannon and pressure other witnesses to testify.

Those pressure tactics are failing, at least with the marquee witnesses. Yesterday, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows broke off cooperation with the panel, even knowing he’s likely to get hit with a criminal contempt charge himself. Another witness, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, says he’ll invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Outwardly, Bannon’s team was granted a delayed trial date because of the legal issues they raised about whether he was justified in refusing to testify based on his claim—dubious, legal experts believe, but unsettled—that he’s subject to executive privilege as a former Trump White House staffer.

But Bannon’s true purpose all along has been sabotaging the Jan. 6 investigation—or, as he put it with typical hyperbole, turning his contempt charge into “ the misdemeanor from hell” for Attorney General Merrick Garland, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Joe Biden.

Yesterday’s developments show he’s plainly succeeding. As former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe put it, the effort to force Bannon to testify is probably a “lost cause for the committee.”

But the fallout is actually worse, as Meadows’s about-face makes clear. Bannon’s intransigence has had the effect of letting him set the bar on what constitutes loyalty to former President Donald Trump—a metric that a substantial portion of Republican lawmakers and officials are deeply anxious about. Meadows had tried to plant a foot in both camps, negotiating with the committee to avoid being charged, while also remaining a member in good standing of Trumpworld.

The circus (Jan. 6 commission) got the clown (Bannon) they deserved.

[SteveRogers]

Criminal contempt is fine and all, but does Congress really not have the power to enforce their own subpoenas? When you fail to show up to a court of law in Texas at the scheduled time for a subpoena, the judge issues a writ of attachment, the county sheriff goes and arrests you, brings you to the courtroom in handcuffs, and puts you in the witness stand. Does Congress really not have the authority to have law enforcement arrange transportation for uncooperative witnesses? If not, they should, idk, pass a law about that.

[emailking]

Criminal contempt is fine and all, but does Congress really not have the power to enforce their own subpoenas? When you fail to show up to a court of law in Texas at the scheduled time for a subpoena, the judge issues a writ of attachment, the county sheriff goes and arrests you, brings you to the courtroom in handcuffs, and puts you in the witness stand. Does Congress really not have the authority to have law enforcement arrange transportation for uncooperative witnesses? If not, they should, idk, pass a law about that.

They can have them arrested and held at the Capitol until they agree to testify. They're just choosing not to go that route.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Criminal contempt is fine and all, but does Congress really not have the power to enforce their own subpoenas? When you fail to show up to a court of law in Texas at the scheduled time for a subpoena, the judge issues a writ of attachment, the county sheriff goes and arrests you, brings you to the courtroom in handcuffs, and puts you in the witness stand. Does Congress really not have the authority to have law enforcement arrange transportation for uncooperative witnesses? If not, they should, idk, pass a law about that.

They can have them arrested and held at the Capitol until they agree to testify. They're just choosing not to go that route.

It's DOJ and FBI fault they said Trump doesn't have to testify before the Commission and Trump was cleared by the FBI for planning the insurrection


So Trump is following suit by not making his Lieutenants testify because he feels the Rs are gonna take the H in Nov anyways it's still remains to be seen if that happens

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/1469005187826262018

[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

[GeorgiaModerate]

That was fast:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1469056064079511554

[Torie]

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?

[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

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

"It's not the world that's crazy.  Just most of the people in it."

(From the play You Can't Take It With You - which premiered in 1936!)

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1469284678075047943

Ye is Q? Or, Q is Ye?

[Torie]

Here is a concise, and I believe accurate, of the current state of legal play of a former POTUS asserting executive privilege to protect his personal ass from the unpleasant consequences of his acts (yes, that is not a "fair and balanced" posing of the question from me, but then Trump has always been inimical to my balance):

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/11/does-executive-privilege-extend-beyond-a-presidents-term/

Trump to get in the legal game here and make for an interesting SCOTUS case with a potentially uncertain result, needs to come up with something concrete that has to do with enabling a POTUS to perform his official duties while in office to facilitate discharging his duties, rather than protecting himself from the consequences of trying to keep himself in office in an execrable and perhaps illegal way, or from embarrassment and ridicule.

[emailking]

January 6 committee releases resolution recommending holding Meadows in contempt of Congress

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol has issued a resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump's chief of staff, in contempt of Congress.

The resolution comes after the panel informed Meadows last week that it has "no choice" but to advance criminal contempt proceedings against him given that he has decided to no longer cooperate.

"The Select Committee is left with no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution," committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, wrote in a letter dated December 7.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/politics/mark-meadows-january-committee-contempt-of-congress-resolution/index.html

[Yoda]

I'm glad, it's happening, because I think, it will hurt Dems in midterms. Don't be surprised when you get polls like this one

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

(A+)-rated ABC News/The Washington Post

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/417a5111-a75e-4efb-b100-f1f10f164fb1/note/0bb59958-b21c-4aad-b458-076ce686873c.

Nov. 7-10
1,001 Adults

Adults:
41 (-3 since AUG 29-SEP 1)
53 (+2)
Strongly:
19 (-6)
44 (+2)

RV: 38/57  - Ouch
Strongly: 19/48


Economy:
Adults: 39/55
RV: 38/59

Covid:
Adults: 47/49
RV: 45/52


GB:
Adults: R 46 (+3)
RV: R 51 (+10)

 when Dems priority is Bannon circus and not bread-and-butter issues.

BTW, Bannon likely knew, that was coming, LMAO. It's more like political show for him, where is an actor who will perform an act.

Told ya.He'll put on hell of a show.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1460332838063120388

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1468679817298165762

Well, of course, lmao.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/steve-bannon-is-sabotaging-the-jan-6-probe-joshua-green
Steve Bannon Is Sabotaging the Jan. 6 Probe

On Tuesday, a federal judge set Steve Bannon’s trial date for next July in his contempt of Congress case for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 committee. That’s sooner than the October date his lawyers asked for, but it’s still a big blow to the government and the committee, which wanted to move quickly to make an example of Bannon and pressure other witnesses to testify.

Those pressure tactics are failing, at least with the marquee witnesses. Yesterday, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows broke off cooperation with the panel, even knowing he’s likely to get hit with a criminal contempt charge himself. Another witness, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, says he’ll invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Outwardly, Bannon’s team was granted a delayed trial date because of the legal issues they raised about whether he was justified in refusing to testify based on his claim—dubious, legal experts believe, but unsettled—that he’s subject to executive privilege as a former Trump White House staffer.

But Bannon’s true purpose all along has been sabotaging the Jan. 6 investigation—or, as he put it with typical hyperbole, turning his contempt charge into “ the misdemeanor from hell” for Attorney General Merrick Garland, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Joe Biden.

Yesterday’s developments show he’s plainly succeeding. As former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe put it, the effort to force Bannon to testify is probably a “lost cause for the committee.”

But the fallout is actually worse, as Meadows’s about-face makes clear. Bannon’s intransigence has had the effect of letting him set the bar on what constitutes loyalty to former President Donald Trump—a metric that a substantial portion of Republican lawmakers and officials are deeply anxious about. Meadows had tried to plant a foot in both camps, negotiating with the committee to avoid being charged, while also remaining a member in good standing of Trumpworld.

The circus (Jan. 6 commission) got the clown (Bannon) they deserved.

How has the Jan. 6th commission behaved or conducted their proceedings/investigation like a circus? I was wholly unaware that they had been acting like any of the (numerous) Benghazi commissions. Details, please.

[Joe Republic]

Federal prosecutors said Courtright later told investigators that she was looking for a place to charge her phone inside and that she didn’t realize when she first went onto the Senate floor that she was on the Senate floor.

“As she went inside, she claimed that she was focused on turning her phone on and did not pay attention to what was going on around her. She did remember seeing a circle of law enforcement officers, people chanting, people trying to break things, and others telling them not to break things,” they wrote. “According to the defendant, after she entered she started looking for a place to charge her phone.”