January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Inmate Trump]

And for the record, I left the GOP for many reasons. My views on a lot of issues have changed as I’ve gotten older. But, yes, Trump was a big part of my decision to leave. I voted third party in 2012 though, so my drift began before him.

Right, but here's the thing. Other people also change their positions on issues as they grow older. And yes, parties change too. It goes both ways.

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

[BG-NY]

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

I would have supported Al Gore marching on the Capitol in 2000 as well.

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

[Inmate Trump]

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

I would have supported Al Gore marching on the Capitol in 2000 as well.

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

If Trump wins in 2024, then the voters who will have elected him have no integrity or patriotism. Yes, that’s what I said. The man tried to overthrow the United States government. What are you not getting?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

I would have supported Al Gore marching on the Capitol in 2000 as well.

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

And Gore would have been wrong to do so.  Gore pursued his challenge as far as he could in the courts, and when he lost there, he conceded gracefully and did not continue to claim that he'd been cheated.  Nor would he have condoned his armed supporters marching on the Capitol, or tried to create a slate of fake electors, or tried to pressure state legislatures to change their results.  Unlike Trump, Gore knew when the election was over, and where to stop within the rule of law and for the good of the country.

[emailking]

Gore was also the one counting the votes and shot down all the challenges the Dem Reps launched.

[LBJer]

Additionally, the equating of Gore with Trump is disingenuous because there was (and still is) real uncertainty as to who actually won the 2000 election.  This was and is NOT the case regarding the 2020 election.  There was never the slightest bit of evidence that Biden's victory was illegitimate.  Comparing the two men effectively implies that there was. 

[BG-NY]

1948. 1960. 2000. 2016. 2020.

We have had five elections in the modern era in which the tipping point state was settled by <1%.

Numbers speak for themselves.

[GeorgiaModerate]

1948. 1960. 2000. 2016. 2020.

We have had five elections in the modern era in which the tipping point state was settled by <1%.

Numbers speak for themselves.

This point doesn't help your cause; quite the contrary.

Yes, we've had plenty of close elections.  The losing candidates in such elections have every right to pursue recounts and challenges within the established election laws of those states, and even to the courts beyond that.  And if those challenges don't bear fruit, the losers should concede gracefully and accept their loss. This is fundamental to a functioning democracy.  What part of this do you not understand or accept? 

In every one of those elections, EXCEPT ONE, the losing candidate accepted their loss.  In none of those elections, EXCEPT ONE, did the losing candidate try to interfere with and subvert the election by any means necessary.  The losing candidates in those other close elections certainly don't justify Trump's criminal behavior regarding 2020; instead, they set an example for what he should have done.

[LBJer]

No.  They're worse because they actually tried to overturn the outcome of an election.  Calling it just a disagreement is facile and a deliberate attempt to minimize the seriousness of the offense.  It's like those who called the Civil War "the recent unpleasantness".

Here are three questions I have for you, and then I'll be on my way and wish you a happy Independence Day:

(1) Did your support or opposition to Trump and Trumpism change in nature or in degree following election day in 2020 versus your outlook from 2015-early November 2020?
(2) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if individual supporters believe the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?
(3) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if Trump himself believed the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?

(1) Yes.  Prior to the election and subsequent events, I thought Trump was merely a horrible and corrupt President, but I hoped that he would accept his loss (however grudgingly) and move on.  Afterward, I came to view him as a criminal who deliberately attempted to overthrow our constitutional democracy so that he could remain in power.  

(2 & 3) Yes to both.  A belief that one's actions are righteous or justified is not a defense to engaging in criminal activity.  For example, if you believe that a bank cheated you out of some money, you can sue and try to recover it in the courts; but if you lose there, that's the end of it.  You may still believe you were cheated, but that doesn't give you the right to rob the bank, no matter how much you may believe that you were right.

There are times when breaking the law--even if we're talking about using violence--is indeed justified.  The July 20 plotters didn't have a legal right to try to kill Hitler in 1944, yet they are honored for doing so in today's Germany.

But this is totally different.  First of all, I think the question of "would Trump have been justified if he believed it was stolen" is misconceived from the outset.  If there really was fraud on the scale required to change the election result, the courts and state election officials should have been able to pick up on it.  Yet 60 plus lawsuits were thrown out of court--in some cases by Trump-appointed judges--and election officials of both parties in every state said there was no significant fraud.  Given that Trump still claimed to believe there was fraud at that point, one of two things were going on--1.) He knew full well there wasn't fraud but insisted there was to persuade his followers to help him overthrow the government, or 2.) he genuinely believed there was fraud due to some sort of mental problem (not necessarily insanity in the legal sense).  The evidence coming to light strongly suggests option 1.  But either way, he's totally unsuited to be president.

But let's suppose Trump really DID have good reason to believe the election had been stolen.  Would he then have been morally justified in mounting an insurrection?  No.  His first moral obligation would have been to do what was best for the country, not for himself and his supporters.  By any reasonable assessment, a forcible seizure of power would do the country far more harm and put it in far more danger than a stolen election would.  If an election is found to have been stolen, measures can be legally taken to minimize the possibility of a recurrence of that in the future.  But once the bell of the coup is rung, there's no going back from that.  The U.S. would lose the political stability that has been a critical element in its success since George Washington.  Nothing--not even genuinely being cheated out of an election--justifies doing that.

[Inmate Trump]

1948. 1960. 2000. 2016. 2020.

We have had five elections in the modern era in which the tipping point state was settled by <1%.

Numbers speak for themselves.

So a close election means the loser is free to stage a coup? Stop.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

(2) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if individual supporters believe the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?
(3) Is it consciously attempting to overturn an election if Trump himself believed the election was stolen (whether or not it actually was in practice)?

It may depend on the exact crime he is charged with, but in many cases it wouldn’t matter what Trump actually believed, but what a “reasonable person” would have believed and would have done in response to that belief.

The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
the extent of the risk so created;
the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.[/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Do you really believe Trump did all these things?

[Ferguson97]

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

GWBFan is correct.

If America (legitimately) elects Trump in 2024, I would conclude that America is devoid of integrity and patriotism, because Trump is the antithesis of integrity and patriotism.

[President Johnson]

Yes.

But my problem with your side is not your stances on the issues. I don’t agree but Americans should be able to work around that.

My problem with your side is you *refuse* to examine Trump’s post-election actions (including but not limited to Jan. 6) with anything resembling logic. My problem is that you put Trump, the party, and yourselves above your country. That has nothing to do with the issues; it has to do with your integrity and your patriotism…which you have none if you continue to support a man who tried to take down the entire nation.

I would have supported Al Gore marching on the Capitol in 2000 as well.

My issue with your argument, GWBFan, is it suggests that if Trump wins in 2024, that the country has no integrity or patriotism.

And Gore would have been wrong to do so.  Gore pursued his challenge as far as he could in the courts, and when he lost there, he conceded gracefully and did not continue to claim that he'd been cheated.  Nor would he have condoned his armed supporters marching on the Capitol, or tried to create a slate of fake electors, or tried to pressure state legislatures to change their results.  Unlike Trump, Gore knew when the election was over, and where to stop within the rule of law and for the good of the country.

Even Richard Nixon did so in 1960. He gracefully conceded the election the next morning despite believing that there were some irregularities (there probably were, but not enough to alter the outcome of the election).

And even in 1974, he at some time knew that it was time to quit and leave.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is no double Jeopardy and Garland has to wait for the state prosecuted whim gas empanel a grand jury to finish it's investigation in GA to proceed in a Federal indictment that why Trump is not being charged by Garland and GA said they will finish by the end of the yr but it's likely if there is no indictment in GA, Garland won't indict

But Trump has a bunch of Civil lawsuits against him already

[Torie]

It is interesting how the table with the water glass (use it or lose it, that is the question), became some kind of metaphor in the trailer ad for the movie.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/05/trailer-trump-documentary-january-6-committee-holder-00043960

[GeorgiaModerate]

An attorney who was part of the Trump legal team challenging results in Georgia and other states following the 2020 presidential election has been ordered to testify in Fulton County's special grand jury probe of those efforts.

The order obtained Tuesday by 11Alive's Joe Henke alleges Kenneth Chesebro is a "necessary and material" witness in Fulton DA Fani Willis' investigation of the Trump team's campaign to overturn Georgia's election results.

It focuses on his alleged role in organizing Georgia's slate of "alternate" electors, members of the Georgia Republican Party who met at the state Capitol on December 14, 2020 to submit illegitimate electoral college votes for former President Trump.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/kenneth-chesebro-ordered-testify-fulton-county-trump-election-probe/85-262a6891-2fbc-4633-bd43-bc633f111d3b

[GeorgiaModerate]

!!! Fulton County special grand jury subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis among others.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

!!! Fulton County special grand jury subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis among others.

This ought to be interesting. Unlike Congress, Fulton County and the State of Georgia will face real consequences if they let their subpoenas be ignored. Meaning that rather than showboating refusals, they ought to face a choice between becoming fugitives hiding in deep red states, or cooperating with Fulton County.

What I predict we'll get is legal foot-dragging, where they pretend to be willing to abide by the law, but do everything possible in their power to delays their appearances (and will take the 5th if and when they are compelled to testify under oath).

[Inmate Trump]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

[President Johnson]

!!! Fulton County special grand jury subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis among others.

This ought to be interesting. Unlike Congress, Fulton County and the State of Georgia will face real consequences if they let their subpoenas be ignored. Meaning that rather than showboating refusals, they ought to face a choice between becoming fugitives hiding in deep red states, or cooperating with Fulton County.

What I predict we'll get is legal foot-dragging, where they pretend to be willing to abide by the law, but do everything possible in their power to delays their appearances (and will take the 5th if and when they are compelled to testify under oath).

Wouldn't they just challenge the subpoenas before various courts? I guess that would delay the process for months, if not years.

I still can't hide my joy over that jerk Lindsey Graham being one of these names.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

From the AJC article:

Graham separately called Raffensperger in the days following the November 2020 elections and allegedly questioned whether the secretary of state had the power to reject more legally cast absentee ballots to help Trump narrow his deficit in Georgia. Graham denied the allegation.

[GeorgiaModerate]

!!! Fulton County special grand jury subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis among others.

This ought to be interesting. Unlike Congress, Fulton County and the State of Georgia will face real consequences if they let their subpoenas be ignored. Meaning that rather than showboating refusals, they ought to face a choice between becoming fugitives hiding in deep red states, or cooperating with Fulton County.

What I predict we'll get is legal foot-dragging, where they pretend to be willing to abide by the law, but do everything possible in their power to delays their appearances (and will take the 5th if and when they are compelled to testify under oath).

Wouldn't they just challenge the subpoenas before various courts? I guess that would delay the process for months, if not years.

I still can't hide my joy over that jerk Lindsey Graham being one of these names.

Giuliani and the other lawyers could attempt to claim attorney-client privilege, although Eastman tried that with the J6 committee with very limited success.  I don't see any similar argument for Graham.

[GeorgiaModerate]

If anyone is curious, the judge overseeing the special grand jury is Fulton Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.  He signed off on the subpoenas, a requirement when the recipients are non-Georgia residents.  McBurney was appointed by former Governor Nathan Deal.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

From the AJC article:

Graham separately called Raffensperger in the days following the November 2020 elections and allegedly questioned whether the secretary of state had the power to reject more legally cast absentee ballots to help Trump narrow his deficit in Georgia. Graham denied the allegation.

This won't be hard to prove either way.  No one's phone records are untouchable.

[Torie]

Didn’t Lindsey call officials in GA trying to pressure them similar to Trump?

Or am I remembering wrong?

From the AJC article:

Graham separately called Raffensperger in the days following the November 2020 elections and allegedly questioned whether the secretary of state had the power to reject more legally cast absentee ballots to help Trump narrow his deficit in Georgia. Graham denied the allegation.

This won't be hard to prove either way.  No one's phone records are untouchable.

I don't think Graham is denying he made the calls, just their characterization as to their content. Just why out of state politicians think it appropriate to hit on those charged with counting the votes escapes me. Just why such calls are picked up by the vote counters also escapes me.