Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation  (Read 115210 times)

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #624 on: June 11, 2022, 01:34:11 PM »
Advertisement
Here is the full video of the first public January 6th Committee Hearings which aired on June 9th.

The video starts at 13:35. 

January 6 hearings: Watch first public House committee hearing on Capitol attack


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #624 on: June 11, 2022, 01:34:11 PM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #625 on: June 11, 2022, 05:54:30 PM »
Jan 6 hearings - live: Trump slams Ivanka over damning testimony debunking election fraud claims
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jan-6-hearing-ratings-testimony-b2098855.html

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #626 on: June 12, 2022, 11:02:13 AM »
Bush ethics lawyer: The Jan. 6 committee needs to follow the money



In an opinion piece for MSNBC, Richard Painter -- the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration from 2005 to 2007 -- brings up what many see as a 'critical' question about the aims of the House Select Committee's public hearings regarding the events of January 6, 2021, as well as identifies "several key areas where the Jan. 6 committee should be directing their focus."

"Where did the money come from? Who paid for this over two-month effort to reverse the results of an election that President Joe Biden won by over eight million votes? And who paid for what almost became a military coup as well as a violent insurrection?," Painter writes. "It is also illegal to use campaign funds to pay for an insurrection or any other illegal conduct."

As Painter further points out, "Many of the insurrectionists came to Washington on bus trips organized and paid for by political organizations in their states of origin, in many cases with funds from state Republican Party organizations, campaigns or related political entities. Political funds can be used for legal challenges to the results of an election when a legitimate challenge can be made. Likewise, campaign funds can be used to stage a rally to support the election of a candidate before the election or a rally to claim victory or concede defeat after the election."

"But campaign funds cannot legally be used to attempt to overturn an election by anti-democratic means. Moreover, campaign funds cannot legally be used to encourage political supporters to break the law. Both the Trump campaign and state GOP organizations should have known as much," Painter writes.

Painter also points a finger both at conservative media and social media platforms

"The second source of funding that should be considered wasn’t cash, but the in-kind donations that came from the conservative media outlets that spread the Big Lie. Fox News of course comes to mind, but there were many others, including talk radio stations, blogs and more ...the Jan. 6 committee should expose the actions of the largest media companies, including not just cable television and radio stations but social media giants like Facebook as well. Congress already has heard from the Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen about how Facebook was adjusting its rules to accommodate false statements posted by Trump, his campaign and his supporters up to Jan. 6. Likewise, these companies were happy to take campaign money to post and air ads that spread these lies after the election."

Many of the organizations that helped spread Trump's "Big Lie" are publicly traded companies that owe an explanation to their shareholders and other investors, as Painter indicates.

The former Bush administration official also identifies another important funder of Jan. 6 -- the US taxpayer.

You can read all of Richard Painter's commentary here:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/jan-6-committee-investigation-needs-track-money-n1296263

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #626 on: June 12, 2022, 11:02:13 AM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #627 on: June 13, 2022, 12:12:04 AM »
The Jan. 6 Committee Hosted A Hearing For The 21st Century
[/i]Congress has finally pivoted to video.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-january-6-committee-hosted-a-hearing-for-the-21st-century/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #628 on: June 13, 2022, 12:56:39 AM »
Jan. 6 panelists: Enough evidence uncovered to indict Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of the House committee investigating the Capitol riot said Sunday they have uncovered enough evidence for the Justice Department to consider an unprecedented criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump for seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The committee announced that Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, is among the witnesses scheduled to testify at a hearing Monday that focuses on Trump’s effort to spread his lies about a stolen election. Stepien was subpoenaed for his public testimony.

As the hearings unfold, Rep. Adam Schiff said he would like the department to “investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump.” Schiff, D-Calif., who also leads the House Intelligence Committee, said that ”there are certain actions, parts of these different lines of effort to overturn the election that I don’t see evidence the Justice Department is investigating.”

The committee held its first public hearing last week, with members laying out their case against Trump to show how the defeated president relentlessly pushed his false claims of a rigged election despite multiple advisers telling him otherwise and how he intensified an extraordinary scheme to overturn Joe Biden’s victory.

Additional evidence is set to be released in hearings this week that will demonstrate how Trump and some of his advisers engaged in a “massive effort” to spread misinformation, pressured the Justice Department to embrace his false claims, and urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject state electors and block the vote certification on Jan. 6, 2021.

Stepien, a longtime Trump ally, is now a top campaign adviser to the Trump-endorsed House candidate in Wyoming’s Republican primary, Harriet Hageman, who is challenging Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair and a vociferous critic of the former president. A Trump spokesman, Taylor Budowich, suggested that the committee’s decision to call Stepien was politically motivated.

Monday’s witness list also includes BJay Pak, the top federal prosecutor in Atlanta who left his position on Jan 4, 2021, a day after an audio recording was made public in which Trump called him a “never-Trumper,” and Chris Stirewalt, the former political editor for Fox News.

The committee has said most of those interviewed in the investigation are coming forward voluntarily, although some have wanted subpoenas to appear in public. Filmmaker Nick Quested, who provided documentary footage of the attack, said during last week’s hearing he received a subpoena to appear.

Committee members said they would present clear evidence that “multiple” GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., had sought a pardon from Trump, which would protect him from prosecution. Perry on Friday denied he ever did so, calling the assertion an “absolute, shameless, and soulless lie.”

“We’re not going to make accusations or say things without proof or evidence backing it,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.

Lawmakers indicated that perhaps their most important audience member over the course of the hearings may be Attorney General Merrick Garland, who must decide whether his department can and should prosecute Trump. They left no doubt as to their own view whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed.

“Once the evidence is accumulated by the Justice Department, it needs to make a decision about whether it can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the president’s guilt or anyone else’s,” Schiff said. “But they need to be investigated if there’s credible evidence, which I think there is.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said he doesn’t intend to “browbeat” Garland but noted the committee has already laid out in legal pleadings criminal statutes they believe Trump violated.

“I think that he knows, his staff knows, the U.S. attorneys know, what’s at stake here,” Raskin said. “They know the importance of it, but I think they are rightfully paying close attention to precedent in history as well, as the facts of this case.”

Garland has not specified whether he would be willing to prosecute, which would be unprecedented and may be complicated in a political election season in which Trump has openly flirted with the idea of running for president again.

No president or ex-president has ever been indicted.

Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974 as he faced an impeachment and a likely grand jury indictment on charges of bribery, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. President Gerald Ford later pardoned his predecessor before any criminal charges related to Watergate could be filed.

Legal experts have said a Justice Department prosecution of Trump over the riot could set an uneasy precedent in which an administration of one party could more routinely go after the former president of another.

“We will follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said in his speech at Harvard University’s commencement ceremony last month.

A federal judge in California said in a March ruling in a civil case that Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in seeking to obstruct the congressional count of the Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge cited two statutes: obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Trump has denied all wrongdoing.

Schiff appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Raskin spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” and Kinzinger was on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-adam-schiff-government-and-politics-presidential-elections-d87892379e7e81c2907edef81a3b2b86

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #628 on: June 13, 2022, 12:56:39 AM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #629 on: June 13, 2022, 01:30:01 AM »
Former Trump campaign manager, ex-Georgia official to testify at Jan. 6 panel's 'Big Lie' hearing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former campaign manager for ex-President Donald Trump and former officials from Atlanta and Philadelphia will testify on Monday to the U.S. congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the committee said on Sunday.

The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee will hold its second public hearing this month on Monday starting at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT), after a blockbuster session on Thursday night where the panel presented testimony showing that close Trump allies - even his daughter Ivanka - rejected his false claims of voting fraud.

The hearing on Monday, the second of six this month, will focus on the former Republican president's contention that his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden in the November 2020 election was due to unfounded allegations of election fraud, the so-called "Big Lie."

The first panel of witnesses at the hearing will include William Stepien, who served as campaign manager for Trump's 2020 campaign, after serving as Trump's White House Director of Political Affairs from 2017 to 2018.

Also testifying at the first panel will be Chris Stirewalt, a former political editor of Fox News.

The second panel will include conservative Republican election attorney Ben Ginsberg; BJay Pak, who resigned as a U.S. attorney in Atlanta as Trump and his allies sought to overturn results of the election in Georgia; and Al Schmidt, who was the only Republican on the city of Philadelphia's elections board and became a target of attacks by Trump after he defended the integrity of the 2020 presidential vote.

Georgia and Pennsylvania were among states that backed Trump in the 2016 election, but fell into Biden's column in 2020. They have been a focus of the unfounded assertions of election fraud.

© Reuters

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #630 on: June 13, 2022, 06:33:07 AM »
Here are the witnesses appearing before the second Jan. 6 committee on Monday

The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress revealed Sunday evening the full list of witnesses that will appear on Monday morning at 10 a.m. EST.

Former Donald Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien was one of those known to be testifying under oath, but the committee has also disclosed that former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt will also give testimony. Stirewalt was fired by Fox after calling Arizona for Joe Biden on Election Night. The longtime numbers guy drew fire from the former president for the call, and kicked off a years-long feud between Trump and the network.

The others to appear before the committee include election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg, BJay Pak -- the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia-- and Al Schmidt, the former City Commissioner of Philadelphia.

Ginsberg has represented the Republican Party and GOP candidates as a lawyer. He's also one of the veteran Republican legal experts willing to come forward and call Trump out as a liar. In 2016, Trump's campaign hired Ginsberg's law firm Jones Day, but by 2020 his frustration with the former president took a turn.

Months before the election, Ginsberg retired from the law firm and penned an op-ed in the Washington Post taking aim at Trump's urging that his followers in North Carolina vote twice in the election. This call to his supporters came after Trump had been claiming that the 2020 election would be "rigged" and "fraudulent."

Byung “BJay” Pak previously served in the Justice Department but he mysteriously quit before the Jan. 6 attack. According to his account, Trump was furious that there wasn't an investigation into the 2020 election. A 2021 report cited Pak saying that he thought Trump was going to fire him anyway in a major shakeup at the Justice Department. The evidence has suggested that Trump was attempting to change the leadership at the DOJ so that he could get government support to either change the election results or begin an investigation that would stall the inauguration of Joe Biden.

Former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt was a common Trump target in 2020.

Schmidt appeared on CNN weeks after the election and amid Trump's claim of fraud saying, "I think people should be mindful that there are bad actors who are lying to them." His reference was to Donald Trump.

According to Trump, Schmidt was "being used big time by the Fake News Media to explain how honest things were with respect to the Election in Philadelphia. He refuses to look at the mountain of corruption & dishonesty. We win!"

Trump has also alleged Schmidt, who now works for a good governance group, was “a disaster on the massive election fraud and irregularities which took place in Philadelphia, one of the most corrupt election places in the United States."

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-witnesses/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #631 on: June 13, 2022, 06:52:07 AM »
Experts debate evidence the Jan. 6 committee will reveal in next hearing: 'Even the gravest crime looks provable'



Day two of the public hearings begin Monday morning for the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress and the attempts to overthrow the election.

The committee has confirmed the witnesses for the hearing, which reveals that their focus will likely be on President Donald Trump's false allegations that the 2020 election was fraudulent. According to the witness list, they are all Republicans, and all but one of them publicly claimed that the election wasn't fake or fraudulent.

Glenn Kirschner @glennkirschner2
Given this lineup of witnesses, tomorrow’s J6 hearing promises to bring lots of revelations about Trump’s crimes. Things are moving in the right direction, IMO.

Legal experts and political pundits gave their predictions and how they expect in the hearing on Monday. Others, however, debated what the committee has already shown and how it reflects on the Justice Department.

Some legal analysts claimed that the committee has already proven that Trump broke the law and asked why the Justice Department isn't jumping in right away. Others applied their experience to say that the DOJ should be working on its own investigation and not relying on Congress.

It has been mere weeks since the Justice Department asked the House Select Committee for the transcripts of their interviews. This could be because the DOJ is using the information to supplement their own probe, or it could be to fact-check witnesses they're questioning outside of the congressional investigation.

Political activists generally continued their call for prosecutions at the top. This weekend a group of militia members was arrested alleging they were about to carry out a terrorist plot at an LGBTQ+ pride march. The increase in domestic terrorism didn't begin with Jan. 6, 2021, but it's an attack that folks compare to those that have followed.

See some of the commentary below:

Steven Beschloss @StevenBeschloss
I get there are people—good people—who worry that prosecuting Trump will lead to civil unrest and violence. But not prosecuting him will hasten the demise of democracy. Prosecute the guilty.

Daniel Goldman @danielsgoldman
In my view, the criminal case is stronger against Trump for conspiring to impair the lawful function of govt — which focuses on the 7-part plan to overturn the election — than obstructing Congress or seditious conspiracy, both of which center on January 6. https://nytimes.com/2022/06/11/us/politics/jan-6-prosecute-trump.html

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw
I agree with @danielsgoldman that proving Trump conspired to overturn the election poses no serious problems for DOJ—while seditious conspiracy is less of a slam dunk. But even that gravest federal crime (short of treason)already looks provable to me. I’m confident DOJ is on it.

Harry Litman @harrylitman
Look for more damning evidence against Trump from his own people tomorrow inc his campaign manager and his US attorney in Georgia, who was fired for not endorsing the big lie. Imagining the killer cross-examination if Trump or a surrogate ever were to assert the kool aid defense.

Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw
We still need to talk more about Roger Stone wrt January 6. Stone talked with Trump at Mar A Lago on December 27, the day told Trump told Acting AG Jeffrey Rosen in a group phone call, "Just say the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me.”

Cheri Jacobus @CheriJacobus   
Roger Stone was pardoned and his sentence commuted by Trump in exchange for him using that freedom to plan and orchestrate the January 6 insurrection, pipe bombs, guns stashed away in Virginia until Trump called for martial law.  Trump knew. He was fine with Pence being hanged.

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-committee-expectations/

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #631 on: June 13, 2022, 06:52:07 AM »