Jan. 6th commission

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
54,999
Location
Albuquerque, NM
This is heating up and is likely to get hotter. It seems worth it to keep all the news and discussion in one place free from other news.

McConnell on January 6 probe: 'It will be interesting to reveal all the participants that were involved'

(CNN)Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he did not speak to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 6 about then-President Donald Trump's inaction as a crowd stormed the US Capitol.

The Kentucky Republican also expressed interest in what else the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol will discover, in a break with House Republican leaders who dismissed the committee's work as political.
"I was not," McConnell told CNN's Manu Raju when asked if he was in contact with Meadows and or White House officials to urge Trump to do more to stop the riot. "But I do think we're all watching, as you are, what is unfolding on the House side, and it will be interesting to reveal all the participants involved."
His comments come after Meadows' texts with members of Congress and others on the Hill on January 6 were released Monday by the House select committee.

The
texts from unnamed lawmakers, Fox News personalities and Donald Trump Jr. urged Meadows to get Trump to stop the riot at the US Capitol. New messages were also read by committee members on the House floor on Tuesday during debate over referring a criminal contempt of Congress against Meadows to the Justice Department. Later that night, the House voted to recommend that the DOJ pursue criminal charges against Meadows.
Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, both Republicans and members of the committee, voted with Democrats in favor of the referral.
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat and chairman of the select committee, told Raju on Tuesday that the panel will "make a decision within a week or so when to release" the names of the authors of the texts to Meadows. At this point, he added, the panel had only identified House members who had sent their former House colleague text messages, and not senators.
Thompson said the committee felt it was "important" to first put the content out before making the names public.
"Then we will do our own review on the committee as to if and when we will release them," he said. "We will do it. I can't tell you exactly when that will be."
 
Jan. 6 investigators mull whether Trump violated obstruction law

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) raised the question using precise terminology from the criminal statute that some view as possibly applicable to the former president's actions.
By KYLE CHENEY and NICHOLAS WU 12/15/2021 05:18 PM EST

Members of the Jan. 6 select committee are homing in on a politically explosive question: Did Donald Trump’s actions amid the Capitol attack amount to criminal obstruction of Congress?

Twice this week, committee vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has raised the possibility that Trump's conduct while a mob of his supporters overtook the Capitol could qualify as an effort to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory. Cheney described that as a “key” topic facing the panel, particularly as it seeks the testimony of one of Trump’s onetime closest aides, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

rejected that claim in a recent opinion. Several other U.S. District Court judges are considering the same question in other Jan. 6 cases.

Cheney’s suggestion that “inaction” could lead to a violation of the obstruction statute is among the broadest interpretations of that law. Among the variables that judges in obstruction cases must consider is whether the law in question could apply to someone like Trump, whose specific actions on Jan. 6 may have technically been “lawful” even if they were done with the “corrupt” intent of interfering with Congress.

Friedrich called such scenarios “closer questions” than the matter of whether those who broke into the Capitol could be charged with obstruction, suggesting Trump's actions fall into more of a gray area. Nonetheless, Cheney has been careful to frame the question as necessary for the Jan. 6 committee’s “legislative judgments.” Trump has mounted numerous legal campaigns against congressional investigations by claiming they lack a true “legislative purpose” and instead amount to a shadow “law enforcement” effort.

Courts have long held that Congress is not permitted to investigate for the sake of law enforcement. But lawmakers are permitted to share the results of its probes with the Justice Department if they believe they have uncovered evidence of a crime. It’s unclear if DOJ is looking at any aspects of the conduct by Trump or his allies related to Jan. 6. The department has indicted Trump associate Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena from the select committee.

Other members of the Jan. 6 panel have stopped short of specifying the criminal elements of obstruction when discussing Trump’s conduct. But they've acknowledged that it's on their radar. “It’s clearly one of the things on the mind of some of the members of the committee,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Raskin added that a series of text messages sent to Meadows on Jan. 6, revealed in public this week by Cheney, have heightened the relevance of the obstruction statute. The messages showed frantic efforts by close Trump associates — from aides to lawmakers to Fox News hosts to his own eldest son — to get the then-president to call off the rioters as they swarmed the Capitol. Trump did not act for hours amid the bedlam.

Other lawmakers see the question of obstruction as part of their larger investigation into what Trump was doing as the Capitol was under attack. “I think that we're trying to understand those 187 minutes that he didn't say anything — what that means. And we're trying to put some more light on that. I personally am not drawing any conclusions on where that takes us,” said panel member Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.).
 
DC attorney general sues Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members to recoup costs related to January 6

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/dc-proud-boys-oath-keepers-lawsuit/index.html

[quotte](CNN)More than two dozen members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are being sued by District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine in an effort to recover the millions of dollars the city spent to defend the US Capitol during the January 6 attack.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Washington, DC, accuses 31 members of the extremist groups of "conspiring to terrorize the District" on January 6, calling their actions "a coordinated act of domestic terrorism."
Racine is asking the court to find the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys liable for the millions of dollars officials spent dispatching officers from the Metropolitan Police Department to the Capitol, along with the enormous expense of treating the injured officers and paying for their medical leave in the months after the attack.



Three officers from the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police departments died in the days after the attack, and more than 140 officers were injured.

"No one bore the brunt of this gutless attack more than the courageous law enforcement officers including the men and women of the DC Metropolitan Police Department who went into the fire and violence with one objective in mind: remove the violent mob and restore our country's fragile democracy," Racine said at a news conference Tuesday.

This isn't the first civil lawsuit filed against members of the extremist groups who stormed the Capitol on January 6. Several members of Congress have sued leaders of the two organizations, in addition to former President Donald Trump and his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, for conspiring to incite the insurrection. Seven Capitol Police officers have also filed a similar lawsuit against the former President and leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for their roles on January 6.
This latest lawsuit from DC's Attorney General details how members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys allegedly devised a plan for violence on January 6. The lawsuit accuses the group's leaders of recruiting members to travel to the Capitol, plus accuses them of conducting training and providing weapons and tactical gear.

"The defendants, as you know, were not tourists, nor were they acting patriotically," Racine said. "They were vigilantes, members of a mob, insurrectionists who sought to crush our country's freedoms."
Racine's lawsuit does not specify the amount of money the city is seeking, but he said that his office will seek "the maximum financial penalties."

The Justice Department has already charged several members of the Oath Keepers with federal criminal conspiracy. Prosecutors have been building their case for months, releasing details of how the group allegedly gathered and stashed weapons at a northern Virginia Comfort Inn as part of their so-called Quick Reaction Force, and how they communicated during the insurrection. The court filings against members of the group also detail how most of the Oath Keeper defendants are accused of taking part in a military-like formation, called a stack, to cut through the crowd to enter the Capitol.[/quote]
 
What's fascinating to me (beyond the obvious) is that Don Jr. had to text Meadows to tell his dad to stand down. Implying he didn't have a way to text his dad directly. So weird.
Or he was afraid to and then be told to Shut up.
 
Or the Orange Goblin acts like a mob boss and has no direct communication to implicate him.. On purpose.
 
ofc the committee is political, they kicked off the Republicans raising a stink about Pelosi's role in the security lapse

did any of these texts telling Trump to stop the riot tell him to stop the coup or insurrection?

I agree with the lawsuit, the money should pay for repairs and compensate the injured. Hmm... can BLM be sued for their riots?
 
Some of you will remember the Watergate hearing on TV from way back when. They were riveting and Senator Sam Erwin led them with eloquence. I expect that when this commission goes public with hearing in January?, they will be equally riveting.
 
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled, however, that their actions warranted time behind bars.

"They didn't just walk through a door. They climbed through a broken window ... they knew full well of the violence that had preceded their entry," Chutkan said. "The fact is that they were part of a mob ... that was intent on stopping the lawful transfer of power."

"It amounted to an attempted overthrow of the government," she added. "I don't believe that's hyperbole."

Brandon Miller was sentenced to 20 days in jail, and Stephanie Miller was sentenced to 14 days.

"The country is watching," Chutkan said. "There have to be consequences for participating in the attempted violent overthrow of the government."

from yahoo

She doesn't believe thats hyperbole... 14 days for trying to overthrow the government... I mean, climbing thru a window lol

more insurrectionists brought to justice!
 
There's still people around who have faith in the American legal system? The whole thing is a joke

Life is a joke. Most of all the people who believe in nothing. They have a way of making it true.
 
That cuts both ways, the misinformation over what happened + disproportionate reactions to what were for many of the people involved minor crimes is dangerous precedent.
 
@TheMeInTeam Do you know what "taking the fifth" means?
 
Oh this will be great thread to follow, watch how all the right wingers will either be silent, short or very cryptic with their explanations. I imagine they'll avoid you when you ask them to substantiate their comments and the only ones who will tell us their true feelings will be those known for babbling nonsense. Because of course, their beliefs about the January 6 will be utterly unhinged copium, or they would agree with the Jan 6 commission, those are the only two options.
 
Last edited:
Like who? Actual posters with a name, or people you imagine?
 
Top Bottom