Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation  (Read 115219 times)

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #640 on: June 14, 2022, 01:14:13 PM »
Advertisement
Exclusive: Rep. Jamie Raskin says Trump either knew he was lying or was mentally incapacitated

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told reporters after the second day of the House Select Committee hearings about the Jan.6 attack on Congress that the only two options for Donald Trump are that he knew he was lying about the 2020 election fraud or he was mentally incapacitated.

Testifying under oath, former Attorney General Bill Barr commented that if the former president truly believed the things he was saying then he was "detached from reality."

Raskin explained to Raw Story that the committee has chosen to believe that the former president was in his right mind during this period and thus understood what he was doing.

"It's very important for everyone to see that not only was the 'big lie' a big lie, but Donald Trump must have known it was a big lie unless as William Barr put it, 'he was detached from reality. But we're going to assume that the president of the United States was connected to reality. And in that case, he had to listen to the attorney general of the United States, all of the White House lawyers, and the campaign lawyers and campaign advisers — they were all telling him the same thing. It was over. He'd lost the election."

Instead, however, the former president parroted unsubstantiated claims, and conspiracy theories, and then told his followers to come to Washington, D.C.to fight for his presidency.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-knew-lies-mentally-incapacitated/


Official draws a line between the months of Trump's lies and ​the Jan. 6 Capitol attack

Speaking to Raw Story after the second of four House Select Hearings on the attack on Congress, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) connected the dots about how important the testimony was about the plot to overthrow the election and the violence seen on Jan. 6.

The committee walked through many Republican witnesses who testified under oath that they told former President Donald Trump that his conspiracies about the 2020 election being stolen were false. Over and over, the committee showed former officials who worked at both the state and federal level who investigated Trump's claims of fraud. Each of the witnesses said that they were able to prove that the claims were false.

Those officials ultimately conveyed to the former president that his public comments were subsequently untrue, yet he continued to voice them. As the Electoral College certification date approached, Trump then pushed his supporters to stand up for the election in Washington, D.C.

As participants have testified in their own trials, they were called by the president and they heeded that call.

Sherrill, who was in the gallery during the Jan. 6 certification process, told Raw Story that none of them fully realized just how much planning took place to motivate Trump's supporters into action.

"I think there's a narrative that this was just sort of a normal protest turned violent," said Sherrill. "And I think what the committee is showing with this evidence is that there is there is a lot of forethought and planning into trying to overturn the results across the country from the American electorate — and that that began as far back as September (2020)."

She went on to quote former Attorney General Bill Barr, who testified that Trump was uninterested in the facts, regardless of how many people around him made it clear that the election was legitimate.

Sherrill called Trump's unwillingness to concede to losing an election an "existential threat to our government... What's troubling he wasn't coming into this trying to get to the truth. He wasn't coming into this in an attempt to protect our elections. He wasn't coming into this with what we would call a good faith attempt to ensure the will of the people was executed as far as who the president of the United States would be, but rather, throwing out all evidence based in fact and really just trying to search for any means of overturning the election."

According to the New Jersey congresswoman, we're only the beginning of what the committee will present to help connect those dots between Trump knowingly lying, and then motivating his supporters to act on those lies.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-from-eleection-lies-to-violence/

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #640 on: June 14, 2022, 01:14:13 PM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #641 on: June 14, 2022, 02:30:15 PM »
Key takeaways from second Jan. 6 hearing: Barr emerges as central figure

Former Attorney General William Barr, who appeared only in recorded video interviews, offered some of the most riveting new testimony.



WASHINGTON — Listening to Donald Trump spout outlandish claims of election fraud, Attorney General William Barr began to wonder if the 45th president of the United States was in his right mind, he told the Jan. 6 committee in a video-recorded deposition.

The two were meeting privately on December 14, 2020, and Trump purported to have new evidence that Dominion voting machines were rigged, Barr testified. He would get a second term after all, he told Barr. The president then handed Barr a report from a cyber-security firm and as Barr flipped through the pages, he saw nothing that gave credence to such a startling claim.

“I was somewhat demoralized,” Barr told House Jan. 6 committee investigators, “because I thought, ‘Boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has, you know, lost contact with — he’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.’”

Barr's testimony — which came only via pre-recorded video — proved to be some of the most riveting from the second hearing, putting the former Trump appointee at the center of the committee's case against Trump.

Barr’s concern over Trump’s mental state — and how a parade of aides and advisers were trying to convince him that he lost the 2020 election — was the central theme from the committee’s second public hearing on Monday.

Other takeaways included:

Trump was urged not to declare victory prematurely

On the night of the election, Trump’s closest advisers gathered in the White House and debated what he should say publicly given that it might be days before the winner was declared.

With votes still being counted, some of his senior advisers believed it was too early for him to call the race. At least one told him so. Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager, suggested to the president that he give a more guarded statement until it was clear who had won. Trump didn’t heed the advice.

“He thought I was wrong. He told me so,” Stepien said in videotaped testimony aired by the committee.

Trump instead took an approach favored by his longtime confidant, Rudy Giuliani.  The former New York City mayor was at the White House that night. In a conversation with a handful of Trump advisers near the Map Room — where Franklin Roosevelt monitored troop movements during World War II — he called for declaring victory.

Jason Miller, a Trump campaign official, told the committee that Giuliani said, “‘We won. They’re stealing it from us. We need to go say that we won.’ And, essentially, that anyone who didn’t agree with that position was being weak.” Miller, whose testimony was played in video by the committee, said that Giuliani was intoxicated. (A lawyer for Giuliani denied he was inebriated.)

When Trump delivered his speech, he bluntly — and falsely — told his supporters:  “Frankly, we did win this election.”

Panel says Trump engaged in ‘the big ripoff’

The Jan. 6 committee is also tracking the money. One big reason why Trump and his allies continued to push false election fraud claims long after the courts had ruled against Trump was to continue raising millions from fervent Trump supporters, committee members argued.

The committee has previously hinted that money could be a theme that runs throughout the hearings, including who paid for the Jan. 6 rally.

Jan. 6 Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters after the hearing that more details about Trump’s fundraising efforts will be published in the committee’s final report.

"The big lie was also a big ripoff,” said one committee member, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

In fact, Lofgren said the Trump campaign sent millions of fundraising emails to its backers, between Election Day and Jan. 6, claiming that a “left-wing mob” was undermining the election and calling on supporters to “step-up” and “fight back” to protect election integrity.

Supporters were urged to donate to Trump’s “election defense fund” but the committee said it found no such committee or fund existed. Instead, much of the $250 million raised went to Trump’s new super PAC, called the Save America PAC, launched just the days after the election.

The Jan. 6 panel said Save America funneled millions of dollars of contributions to Trump-friendly organizations and entities. That included $1 million to the Conservative Partnership Institute, a charitable foundation closely linked to Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows; another $1 million to the America First Policy Institute, a closely-aligned advocacy  group which employs several former Trump administration officials; more than $200,000 to the Trump Hotels chain; and more than $5 million to the events company that produced Trump’s Jan. 6 rally before the attack.

“The [fundraising] emails continued through Jan. 6, even as President Trump spoke on the Ellipse. Thirty minutes after the last fundraising email was sent, the Capitol was breached,” Amanda Wick, senior investigative counsel for the Jan. 6 committee, said in a video during the hearing

Trump’s 2020 campaign was a hot mess

Stepien took over the campaign from Brad Parscale just four months before the election.

Though the campaign would raise $774 million, Stepien said that when he became campaign manager he inherited an operation that was at a low point in the polls and both “structurally and fiscally deficient.” He set about “fixing things that could be fixed with 115 days left in the campaign.”
Trump rebuffed basic campaign tactics that would have maximized his chances. He proved stubborn when it came to mail-in voting.

At one point, Stepien testified, he called a meeting with Trump and House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy to persuade the president that mail-in voting could be an asset. McCarthy backed him up.

Stepien’s point was that Republicans had built a grassroots campaign apparatus that could mobilize people to vote by mail. Also, it was risky to bet so heavily on in-person voting. But Trump was unmoved.

“The president’s mind was made up,” Stepien said.

Committee stays on message

With no dissenting voices on the panel,  the Jan. 6 committee has demonstrated the benefit of having an entire panel operating from the same playbook.

Republicans chose not to seat anyone on the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two congressmen they’d wanted to serve. The committee is made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans who are both vocal Trump critics. As a consequence, the panel has been able to stay extremely disciplined and on message as it builds its case against the 45th president.

A typical House committee might see members in the minority interrupt the chairman, cross examine key witnesses, or introduce evidence that contradicts the majority’s narrative. But that hasn’t been the case here.

Add to that the highly scripted format, and the first two hearings have not resembled the productions Congress is accustomed to.

The Jan. 6 panel has presented video montages of the Capitol riot, taped interviews of committee staff who helped connect the dots for viewers, and friendly questioning of witnesses like prominent GOP election attorney Ben Ginsberg.

The Trump campaign “did have their day in court,” Ginsberg testified. “In no instance did a court find that the charges of election fraud were real.” Ginsberg didn’t face any followup questions.

The only surprise Monday came before the hearing got going: Stepien, the star witness of the day, canceled his appearance after his wife went into labor. After a brief delay, the committee regrouped and moved forward with the hearing using video-taped testimony from Stepien during his earlier deposition.

Lofgren said the panel does not need Stepien to give live testimony at a future hearing given his previous “very extensive interview.”

The committee’s presentation is the Trump impeachment trial that never happened

The first two hearings are shaping up to look like the Trump impeachment trial that his accusers wanted last year but never got.

That may not be an accident.

One of the committee members is Rep. Jamie Raskin, D., Md., who led the team of House managers who served as the prosecution in Trump’s second trial.

Trump’s impeachment proceeded on a fast track that made it difficult for Democrats to collect and present evidence laying out Trump’s precise role in the scheme to overturn the election. Plus they had little power to force the sitting president to turn over records, whereas the National Archives has been much more compliant after taking custody once he left office.

Basic questions about Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 went unanswered during the trial. For example, when senators asked what steps Trump took to end the violence at the Capitol, one of Trump’s lawyers made reference to a tweet he had sent out asking people to stay “peaceful.”  Trump was acquitted.

The committee is offering a richer account of what happened that day. During the first hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney, R., Wyo., vice-chair of the Jan. 6 committee, said that Trump began yelling and got “really angry at advisers who told him he needed to be doing something more” to call off the attack.

Watch videos in link below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-hearing-committee-takeaways-day-two-rcna32994

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #642 on: June 14, 2022, 08:33:26 PM »
'Admissible in any future trial': Analysts nail Trump's 12-page Jan. 6 response rant
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-statement-admissible-in-court/

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #642 on: June 14, 2022, 08:33:26 PM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #643 on: June 14, 2022, 11:32:48 PM »

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #644 on: June 15, 2022, 12:09:25 AM »
High-level Capitol riot defendant Ryan Samsel is accused of writing a jailhouse letter earlier this month.

Samsel is the Pennsylvania man accused of toppling barricade and knocking officer unconscious

Here's the letter... per prosecutors.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #644 on: June 15, 2022, 12:09:25 AM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #645 on: June 15, 2022, 11:43:17 AM »
New testimony will show how John Eastman continued his plots to overturn 2020 election even after January 6

On Tuesday, POLITICO reported that the January 6 Committee has evidence that pro-Trump lawyer John Eastman continued pushing his schemes to overturn the 2020 presidential election — even after the attack on the U.S. Capitol had taken place.

"Trump White House attorney Eric Herschmann told the select committee — in video testimony revealed publicly Tuesday afternoon — that he received an unexpected phone call on Jan. 7, 2021, from John Eastman, the attorney who played an instrumental role in Trump’s last-ditch strategy to subvert the election," reported Kyle Cheney. "In Herschmann’s telling, Eastman immediately asked him about 'something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal.'"

“And I said to him, ‘Are you out of your f’ing mind?’” said Herschmann in the testimony. “I said, ‘I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: orderly transition.’” According to Herschmann, Eastman eventually agreed to this after being pressed.

"The minute-long clip was primarily a teaser for Thursday’s hearing, which will feature testimony from at least two key allies of former Vice President Mike Pence: former counsel Greg Jacob and retired federal judge Michael Luttig," said the report. "Jacob spent the days before Jan. 6 helping Pence fend off pressure from Eastman to impede the transition of power on Jan. 6, when Pence was required to preside over a joint session of Congress to count electoral votes."

Eastman, who is currently under investigation by the California State Bar, was the legal brains behind a fringe theory that said if Republicans put forward fake slates of "alternate" electors in states President Joe Biden narrowly won, Pence could simply rule these states as having unclear results, not counting them at all and throwing the election to Trump with the only counted electors.

Legal experts have widely panned this plan as illegal, and even Eastman himself privately acknowledged it wasn't consistent with federal law.

Watch video here: https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1536815728208355330

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #646 on: June 15, 2022, 12:29:08 PM »
Trump faces 'real danger' after Jan 6. committee revealed evidence of ‘false solicitation of money’: legal expert

During a segment on CNN this Tuesday, anchor Ana Cabrera brought up recent comments made by former Attorney General Bill Barr, who said he's hasn't yet seen the Jan. 6 committee offer up evidence of a prosecutable crime against Donald Trump. But former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Shan Wu disagrees.

"I think we really need to emphasize from a prosecutorial point of view, being detached from reality is not a defense to any crime unless you want to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, which they can do," Wu said. "But the evidence is there and I don't think by excessive hand-wringing over whether there's really intent or not is necessary here. I think there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and when I was a prosecutor, I would have been salivating about having this much evidence about a defendant's intent."

Appearing Monday in a pre-recorded deposition at a congressional hearing into the 2021 assault on the US Capitol, Barr described his then boss as having no interest in the facts that debunked his groundless narrative.

"I was demoralized because I thought, boy... he's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff," Barr told the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection by supporters of Trump.

"When I went into this and would tell him how crazy some of these allegations were, there was never an indication of interest in the actual facts," said Barr, who likened addressing Trump's avalanche of false allegations with playing the game "whack-a-mole."

Later in the segment, Wu told CNN that the case where Trump told Georgia's Secretary of State to find more votes to bolster his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results is the strongest case against the former president. But he also thinks new revelations showing Trump raised over $250 million pushing debunked voter fraud allegations for an “official election defense fund” that the committee found did not exist is also a significant legal threat.

"I think that raises real exposure and danger for Trump and those who helped him to do that," Wu said. "And in particular, I think it's more dangerous because of the prosecutorial discretion aspect. That kind of a charge -- wire fraud, basically -- may be more palatable to prosecutors and DOJ and AG Garland than wading into these uncharted waters of charging a former president with trying to overthrow the very government he was in charge of."

The committee says the initial claim of fraud grew quickly into a fundraising campaign that raised millions between election night and the Capitol insurrection.

The committee's senior investigative counsel Amanda Wick said much of the cash was funneled into a political action committee that made donations to pro-Trump organizations.

"As early as April 2020, Mr Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election would be as a result of fraud," Democratic panel member Zoe Lofgren said Monday.

"The big lie was also a big rip-off," she said, promising to show how the Trump campaign raised hundreds of millions of dollars from supporters who were falsely led to believe their donations would be used for the legal fight over fraud claims.

Watch the video below:


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #647 on: June 15, 2022, 12:59:03 PM »
Court schedules initial appearance in Jan 6 case of Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley for Thursday at 1pm

That's the exact time the next Jan 6 Select Committee hearing begins.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #647 on: June 15, 2022, 12:59:03 PM »