Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation  (Read 114717 times)

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #352 on: March 24, 2022, 11:31:07 PM »
Advertisement
Jan. 6 committee to hold Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in criminal contempt



The House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots is preparing to hold two more Trump allies in criminal contempt.

As reported by Politico's Kyle Cheney, the committee is going to vote on whether to recommend criminal contempt charges for former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro and former White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino.

BREAKING: The Jan. 6 select committee is preparing to hold in contempt:

-PETER NAVARRO
-DAN SCAVINO


https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1507052456747966479

Jan. 6 panel to vote to hold former Trump aides Navarro, Scavino in contempt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/jan-6-committee-trump-navarro-scavino-contempt-congress/

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #352 on: March 24, 2022, 11:31:07 PM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #353 on: March 25, 2022, 11:15:36 AM »
MAGA rioter who yelled for 'patriots' to force open Capitol doors pleads guilty to felony charge



A North Carolina man who was on the front lines of the January 6 riot encouraging rioters to battle police at the U.S. Capitol has pleaded guilty to a felony, the Department of Justice announced today.

Lewis Easton Cantwell, 36, of Waynesville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to obstructing, impeding, or interfering with law enforcement during the commission of civil disorder.

“According to court documents, on Jan. 6, Cantwell joined other rioters at the front of one of the entrances into the Capitol and used his cellphone to make several video recordings of individuals battling with law enforcement officers,” according to a DOJ release. “During one of the recordings, he yelled for rioters to “get the door open.” At another point, he yelled that they needed “fresh patriots to the front.”

In reporting last July, the Asheville Citizen Times described Cantwell as having co-owned a since-closed teashop called “Sip’ Sum” and having served from 2005-2007 as a private in the U.S. Army. He was an explosive ordnance disposal specialist.

The newspaper also reported that Cantwell initially was assigned a public defender but “traded for a high-profile criminal defense attorney, Eduardo Balarezo” a D.C.-based attorney who it said had previously represented El Chapo.

“It is unclear how Cantwell went from qualifying for a public defender to securing Balarezo’s representation,” it reported.

But the Smoky Mountain News reported on December 15 that “California-based Attorney Nic Cocis entered his request to replace Eduardo Balarezo as Cantwell’s attorney of record.”

Cantwell, who will be sentenced on Sept. 22, 2022, faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-guilty-plea-2657035014/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #354 on: March 26, 2022, 10:42:59 AM »
Ginni Thomas pushed 'Stop the Steal' plans to Indiana Republican originally nominated to January 6 committee

On Friday, NBC News reported that, in addition to previous revelations that far-right activist Ginni Thomas was in close contact with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on overthrowing the 2020 presidential election, she was also in contact with the office of a top House Republican who had been nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to investigate the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"Shortly after the 2020 election, Virginia 'Ginni' Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent an email to an aide to a prominent House conservative saying she would have nothing to do with his group until his members go 'out in the streets,' a congressional source familiar with the exchange told NBC News," reported Scott Wong. "Thomas told an aide to incoming Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., that she was more aligned with the far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders just two months later would lead the fight in Congress to overturn the results of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory."

"Thomas wrote to the aide that Freedom Caucus members were tougher than RSC members, were in the fight and had then-President Donald Trump’s back, according to the source familiar with the email contents. Until she saw RSC members 'out in the streets' and in the fight, she said, she would not help the RSC, the largest caucus of conservatives on Capitol Hill," said the report. "Her November 2020 email came in response to a request from the RSC to offer policy recommendations as Banks was set to take the helm of the group in early 2021. But when Thomas portrayed the RSC as soft in its support for Trump and told its members to take to the streets, the aide thanked her for her suggestions and moved on."

Banks would ultimately be one of the Republicans McCarthy nominated for the House Select Committee investigating January 6. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected his appointment, along with the appointment of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), leading McCarthy to withdraw all his nominations and boycott the committee. Pelosi ultimately appointed two Republicans to the committee anyway, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).

There is no evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas was directly involved in his wife's planning to overturn the election. He was the sole justice to vote to block the transmission of communications records from the Trump White House to the committee, a move legal experts slammed as "mind-boggling," although it is unclear whether his wife's communications were part of that batch of records or, if so, whether he was aware of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ginni-thomas-pressed-gop-lawmakers-protest-2020-election-results-rcna21644

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #354 on: March 26, 2022, 10:42:59 AM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #355 on: March 27, 2022, 02:42:21 PM »
Riot committee 'locked in' on 4-minute video of Proud Boys leaders meeting prior to Jan 6th



According to a report from Rolling Stone, the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection has taken an interest in a four-minute clip filmed before the attempted insurrection that showed Proud Boys leaders meeting leaders of the Oath Keepers.

Earlier in the month, the Guardian's Hugo Lowell revealed that the Justice Department and the House select committee had come into possession of "hours of nonpublic footage" taken by a Goldcrest Films documentary crew that was following both Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes before the riot.

According to Rolling Stones' Hunter Walker, that footage contains a 4-minute clip filmed in a garage that may become key in the prosecution of Capitol rioters and organizers.

As Walker wrote, "As part of the investigation, the committee has obtained footage of Proud Boys leaders — including four minutes that may contain audio of a key meeting — and testimony linking the right-wing group First Amendment Praetorian to the organizers of the Jan. 6, 2021, rally on the White House Ellipse, where Trump urged the crowd to "fight like hell" as his defeat was being certified at the Capitol. "

Once source told the reporter, "They’ve been locked in on Proud Boys and Oath Keepers,” before adding it has become a "major part” of their investigation.

Noting, "A second source confirmed the committee’s interest in the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and First Amendment Praetorian, " the report continued, "The third source, who has seen the footage, said it largely features the Proud Boys and that Rhodes is only present during a meeting he had with Tarrio in a parking garage near the Capitol on Jan. 5. According to the third source, Oath Keepers general counsel Kellye SoRelle, Latinos for Trump President Bianca Gracia, and Vets for Trump co-founder Josh Macias also participated in the meeting. They further said the footage obtained by the committee includes approximately 'four minutes' of B-roll that may contain audio of the parking-garage meeting."

The report adds that federal prosecutors referenced the meeting when Tarrio was indicted on charges of conspiracy.

According Waker, "...the meeting took place after approximately 5 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021, when Tarrio was released from jail after having been arrested the day before on charges related to the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner during a previous pro-Trump rally."


Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee ‘Locked In’ on Proud Boys

Investigators have obtained testimony linking rally organizers to First Amendment Praetorian and “four minutes” of footage that may contain audio of a key Proud Boys and Oath Keepers parking-garage meeting, sources say.


Members of the Oath Keepers militia group stand among supporters of President Trump occupying the east front steps of the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol building has been examining the role far-right militant groups played in efforts to overturn President Trump’s election loss and the violence that erupted that day. As part of the investigation, the committee has obtained footage of Proud Boys leaders — including four minutes that may contain audio of a key meeting — and testimony linking the right-wing group First Amendment Praetorian to the organizers of the Jan. 6, 2021, rally on the White House Ellipse, where Trump urged the crowd to “fight like hell” as his defeat was being certified at the Capitol.

A source familiar with the situation, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, confirmed the committee is focusing on specific militant groups.

"They’ve been locked in on Proud Boys and Oath Keepers,” the source said, adding that First Amendment Praetorian, which is also known as “1AP,” is a “major part” of the House investigation.

The House select committee is separate from the criminal investigation into the attack that is being conducted by the Justice Department. Leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have both faced federal charges for alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. A second source confirmed the committee’s interest in the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and First Amendment Praetorian.

First Amendment Praetorian has been identified by both The New York Times and CNN as a far-right “paramilitary group.” The little-known organization presents itself as a boutique security consultancy for conservative causes. A LinkedIn page that appears to belong to Robert Patrick Lewis, the group’s chairman, describes First Amendment Praetorian as a group that is “dedicated to providing intelligence and security services to grassroots events in order to ensure Americans may express their 1st Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and political affiliation.” The committee subpoenaed Lewis last November. In a statement announcing that subpoena, the committee said 1AP “provided security at multiple rallies leading up to January 6th that amplified the former President’s unsupported claim that the election was stolen.” Lewis did not respond to a request for comment.

On March 20, The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported that the committee and the Justice Department have obtained “hours of nonpublic footage” from a Goldcrest Films documentary crew that filmed Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes prior to Jan. 6. Three sources confirmed to Rolling Stone that the committee is in possession of the footage.

The third source, who has seen the footage, said it largely features the Proud Boys and that Rhodes is only present during a meeting he had with Tarrio in a parking garage near the Capitol on Jan. 5. According to the third source, Oath Keepers general counsel Kellye SoRelle, Latinos for Trump President Bianca Gracia, and Vets for Trump co-founder Josh Macias also participated in the meeting. They further said the footage obtained by the committee includes approximately “four minutes” of B-roll that may contain audio of the parking-garage meeting.

In addition to his position in the Proud Boys, Tarrio was the chief of staff of Latinos for Trump, an activist group. Through that organization, both Tarrio and Gracia had attended events at the White House. Macias reportedly spoke at a pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. At the time, he was out on bail on weapons charges related to a November 2020 incident where he and an alleged co-conspirator were arrested after police claimed they drove from Virginia to a vote-counting center in Philadelphia two days after the election in a Hummer loaded with handguns, an AR-15, over 100 rounds of ammo, and a samurai sword.

Federal prosecutors described the parking-garage meeting in an indictment against Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders that charged them with conspiracy related to the Jan. 6 attack. According to that indictment, the meeting took place after approximately 5 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021, when Tarrio was released from jail after having been arrested the day before on charges related to the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner during a previous pro-Trump rally. Prosecutors alleged Tarrio met with Rhodes and other unnamed individuals in an underground garage near the Phoenix Park Hotel, which is located roughly a half mile from the Capitol.

"During this encounter, a participant referenced the Capitol,” according to the indictment.

Gracia and Macias did not respond to requests for comment. In an email to Rolling Stone, SoRelle suggested the prosecutors’ story of the meeting was “exaggerated.” SoRelle described it as a short encounter that took place as she and Rhodes were visiting Gracia’s “hotel room to pick up our badges for the speaking event the next morning.”

“I had located a couple of attorneys’ names and contact information when Enrique was arrested, because I had been contacted by multiple people about helping him … so Bianca thought we should all go down and make sure he had counsel information and to say hi,” SoRelle wrote.

SoRelle further claimed “the exchange was very brief” between Rhodes and Tarrio and that, in her estimation, it was “10 mins in the garage, tops.”

“Stewart and Enrique were introduced and said their hellos,” SoRelle explained.

Jon Moseley, an attorney who has represented Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder, has previously told this reporter that federal prosecutors’ claim the Capitol was “referenced” during this meeting was “absolutely false.”

“The only thing that was discussed was that Enrique Tarrio had just made bail and was looking for ideas on getting a lawyer,” Moseley wrote in an email earlier this month. “In general, all of the indictments are works of fiction, like John Grisham novels. So to say, that part of the indictment is false is really not saying much.”

Moseley went on to say, “Stewart Rhodes with Kellye Soirrelle [sic] was getting ready to leave a parking garage when she learned that Enrique Tarrio with Latinos for Trump leaders was entering the same parking garage on the ground floor.”

“They were asked do you want to come meet Enrique Tarrio? Rhodes and Soirrelle answered (in my words) why not?” Moseley wrote.

Moseley did not respond to an additional request for comment on Friday afternoon.

Dan Hull, an attorney who has represented Tarrio and other members of the Proud Boys also did not respond to a request for comment. Hull put up a post in January wherein he suggested the Proud Boys are not the same as the Oath Keepers.

“Proud Boys and The Oathkeepers are WAY different from each other. Way. One’s a working-class frat. One’s a demented militia. One is playful and fun. The other is paranoid and nuts,” the Instagram post said. “Learn the difference, folks.”

Scott Johnston, who was a member of the “March for Trump” team that helped stage months of protests against Trump’s loss around the country, tells Rolling Stone he has spoken to committee investigators and linked First Amendment Praetorian to the group that planned the Ellipse rally. According to Johnston, First Amendment Praetorian provided security for November and December 2020 March for Trump rallies in Washington. Johnston dismissed the group as “geritol security” and “a joke.”

“Cindy Chafian had her husband Scott Chafian supposedly provide security using 1AP,” Johnston tells Rolling Stone. “They’re a bunch of 70-year-old men who just wanted VIP tickets.… If they were the security protecting everyone that day, well then, God help us all.”

According to Johnston, Scott Chafian was a leader of the group. A second, separate March for Trump source, who requested anonymity due to the investigation, also said they believed Scott Chafian played a top role in First Amendment Praetorian.

“When we were introduced to 1AP, I thought Scott Chafian was running it,” the source said, adding, “He was introduced to us as having a government clearance and all of that.”

In a text message to Rolling Stone on Friday, Cindy Chafian denied she or her husband were members of First Amendment Praetorian.

"I am not part of 1AP and neither was my husband,” Cindy Chafian wrote. “They simply provided auxiliary security at the rallies.”

Cindy Chafian said she first “met” First Amendment Praetorian during the lead-up to March for Trump’s Nov. 14, 2020, event in Washington. According to Cindy Chafian, she “used them” for a March for Trump event on Dec. 12, 2020 and her own “separate event” on Jan. 5, 2021.

“That’s as far as the relationship goes. I haven’t worked with them since. Any other questions you would have to send to me and I would have to clear with my attorney since I have been subpoenaed. Thank you,” Cindy Chafian wrote, adding a smiley-face emoji.

On a Linkedin page that appears to belong to Scott Chafian, he describes himself as an “organizational development specialist” who had “a 20 year career in the US Navy as a seagoing Surface Warfare Officer, and then on the ground as an Expeditionary Warfare Officer.”

Cindy Chafian was subpoenaed by the committee last September after helping the pro-Trump group “Women for America First” secure a permit for the main Jan. 6 Ellipse rally. Women for America First is headed by Amy and Kylie Kremer, a mother-and-daughter team who also were leaders of the nationwide March for Trump protests against the former president’s election loss.

Johnston worked as an aide and driver to Kylie Kremer. Rolling Stone has verified Johnston’s March for Trump involvement through multiple sources including group text messages. According to multiple sources, Johnston was in Washington, D.C., with the March for Trump group at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel. He has provided financial statements that appear to confirm he was at the Willard.

As detailed in the Rolling Stone story published on March 20, Johnston has claimed Kremer took part in a phone call with former top Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about whether they should obtain a permit for a march from the Ellipse rally to the Capitol. Ultimately, Johnston said the trio decided not to hold an official march and instead to “direct the people down there and make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Pierson responded to Rolling Stone’s reporting on Johnston’s allegations by saying “no such call took place” and that “phone records” would disprove Johnston’s “defamatory claims.” A spokesperson for Meadows declined to comment.

Johnston said Kremer used a “burner phone” that was one of three he claims she directed him to purchase for her and her mother, Amy. Burner phones are cheap, prepaid cells that can be harder to trace. Johnston said Kremer told him she needed them to “communicate with high-level people.”

Johnston told Rolling Stone the initial meeting where he relayed these allegations to committee investigators took place last Dec. 20 and that it was an “informal” one, with a staffer taking handwritten notes. After the story on his claims ran in Rolling Stone, Johnston said committee investigators reached out to him to set up an on-the-record interview with a court reporter transcribing the conversation.

Spokespeople for the committee did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Johnston showed Rolling Stone copies of communications with the committee indicating his next interview is set to take place on March 28. Investigators also asked Johnston to provide them with any “corroboration” he might have for his claims regarding “the use of a prepaid phone or the purchase of the phone in California” by the Kremers. During his communications with investigators, Johnston says he was reminded of the penalties for making false statements to Congress and informed that other committee witnesses have denied burner phones were used. A source familiar with the investigation has told Rolling Stone that Amy Kremer denied using burner phones to committee investigators.

Chris Barron, a spokesperson for Amy and Kylie Kremer, offered a terse emailed response to a question about Johnston talking to the committee.

“We hope he tells the truth. Lying to Congress is a crime,” Barron wrote of Johnston.

In a FaceTime call, Johnston showed Rolling Stone text messages he received from Kylie Kremer that he said he had provided to the committee. The messages appeared to be part of extensive communications between Johnston’s phone and a number used by Kremer. Johnston also displayed what appeared to be a history of messages with a number connected to Amy Kremer.

One of the texts Johnston provided to the committee showed Kremer writing to a March for Trump group on Jan. 3, 2021, to say that she and another organizer were “overwhelmed with our phones.” A second text was dated Jan. 15, 2021. The latter message showed Kremer telling Johnston, “I’ll call Greg if I need a bat phone.” Johnston said this was referring to Greg Kurbatoff, a March for Trump security consultant, and that “bat phone” was a euphemism for a burner.

“Even though it was coy, she was still alluding that there were other phones,” Johnston said of Kremer.

In a phone call with Rolling Stone on Friday afternoon, Kurbatoff said there was “nothing at all that was underhanded” about the Kremers’ rally on Jan. 6. Kurbatoff specifically said he gets “a little upset” about allegations the pair were involved in plans to stage a march on the Capitol building.

“Amy and Kylie, we all were on the same page the day of the sixth, under no circumstances do we exercise anything with the Capitol because our permit specifically said … there will be nothing going to the Capitol. It was not for the Capitol, it was just for the Ellipse. You know, it was a successful event. Afterwards, you know, that just — you know, that’s history,” Kurbatoff explained, his voice trailing off as he acknowledged the violence that followed the rally.

Kurbatoff said he never saw the Kremers use “burner phones.” He attributed allegations the devices were used to people involved with the group who were “upset” they didn’t get to appear on the rally stage or weren’t paid more for their work.

“As far as burner phones, I’m not sure what the burner phones would have been used for because there was nothing nefarious going on,” Kurbatoff said. “I think you’ve got a couple people that have been scorned.… There’s some people that got scorned, and they were upset that they didn’t get their 15 minutes.”

Johnston said his text-message conversations with the Kremers stopped by March 15 of last year. On that day, in one of the March for Trump group chats, Johnston complained to the Kremers about an order of MyPillows — the brand headed by Trump ally Mike Lindell — that rally organizers were supposed to receive.

The dispute descended into Johnston accusing Kremer of taking him on a “weird and inappropriate” trip to go “bra shopping.” It appears Kremer subsequently removed him from the group chat.

“That was the last communication I ever had with Kylie Kremer,” Johnston said.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jan-6-committee-oath-keepers-proud-boys-first-amendment-praetorian-1327050/

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #356 on: March 27, 2022, 02:53:32 PM »
John Eastman ties to Clarence Thomas scrutinized after Ginni Thomas election text revelations



According to a report from Politico, attorney John Eastman -- who was leading the charge to overturn 2020 presidential election results that ousted Donald Trump from the White House -- is receiving new scrutiny over his relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas.

In light of revelations about texts being exchanged between Ginni Thomas and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, where the wife of the Supreme Court justice was passing on conspiracy theories and urging the Trump's inner circle to do what they could to remain in power, one member of the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection said he has some questions for Eastman.

As Kyle Cheney reports, "Eastman spent the final weeks of Trump’s presidency driving a strategy to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory, a plan that relied on legal theories so extreme the Jan. 6 select committee says they could amount to criminal conspiracy and fraud," before adding, "The select committee has evidence that when a top Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially told him he believed two Supreme Court justices would back him up. One of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas."

Politico is reporting that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is raising concerns about Eastman and Justice Thomas.

"Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told POLITICO that the new details raise important questions about whether Eastman had a specific reason to believe Justice Thomas would support his radical gambit, or if he was simply voicing a hunch," Cheney wrote before noting, "Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham did not respond to questions about whether Eastman maintained ties to the Thomases or communicated with either of them in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat. There’s no known evidence that Eastman was directly in touch with either of the Thomases during his campaign to pressure Pence to subvert the results."

According to Politico, "Eastman had reason to know Thomas’ views well: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee in the 1990s before becoming a mainstay in deeply conservative legal circles."

The report goes to note that when investigators asked Eastman if he had any reason to believe that the Supreme Court would support his plan to have former vice president Mike Pence refuse to certify the election and throw it back to the states, his response was to plead the 5th Amendment.

What has raised red flags was testimony from Pence lawyer Greg Jacob who told the committee that Eastman had told him that at least two Supreme Court justices might support his plan, with Jacob saying he couldn't recall if Eastman named the other justice.


Ginni Thomas’ West Wing contacts raise new questions for another Trump ally: John Eastman
The Jan. 6 select committee has evidence that Eastman expected Justice Clarence Thomas to back his dubious legal theory to block Joe Biden's victory.



Ginni Thomas’ unfettered access to Donald Trump’s chief of staff — and potentially others in his West Wing — raises new questions about another figure at the center of Trump’s gambit to subvert the 2020 election: attorney John Eastman.

Eastman spent the final weeks of Trump’s presidency driving a strategy to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory, a plan that relied on legal theories so extreme the Jan. 6 select committee says they could amount to criminal conspiracy and fraud.

The select committee has evidence that when a top Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially told him he believed two Supreme Court justices would back him up. One of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas.

Eastman’s assertion, described by Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob to the select committee earlier this year, appeared to be a guess based on analysis of Thomas’ long legal career. Eastman had reason to know Thomas’ views well: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee in the 1990s before becoming a mainstay in deeply conservative legal circles.

But the revelation that Thomas’ wife kept in contact with Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows in the weeks after Trump’s defeat — pressing him to keep trying to overturn the election — adds a new wrinkle to the timeline. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told POLITICO that the new details raise important questions about whether Eastman had a specific reason to believe Justice Thomas would support his radical gambit, or if he was simply voicing a hunch.

Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham did not respond to questions about whether Eastman maintained ties to the Thomases or communicated with either of them in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat. There’s no known evidence that Eastman was directly in touch with either of the Thomases during his campaign to pressure Pence to subvert the results.

But the conservative legal scholar has taken pains to avoid revealing his interactions in that timeframe.

Eastman has sued the Jan. 6 select committee to prevent them from enforcing a subpoena for his records and testimony. He’s also sued his former employer, Chapman University, to prevent the school from turning over thousands of pages of his emails to the select committee. And when Eastman appeared before the committee last year, he embraced a blanket strategy to resist their questions: pleading the Fifth.

During that deposition, investigators specifically asked Eastman to articulate whether he believed the Supreme Court would have supported his gambit. He replied with a single word: “Fifth.”

Other than Trump, Eastman has proven to be the most significant figure in the select committee’s investigation, one the panel’s top lawyer — House General Counsel Douglas Letter — called the “central player in the development of a legal strategy to justify a coup.”

The panel is engaged in extensive, hard-fought litigation to obtain Eastman’s Chapman University emails, and it is awaiting a federal judge’s decision about whether Eastman can continue to shield them behind claims of attorney-client privilege. While the panel says it has put some of its legal fights on the back burner, Letter has remained fixed on winning the battle against Eastman. And the select committee used the fight to publicly unload some of its key evidence, including excerpts of interview transcripts with Eastman and Jacob, Pence’s counsel.

The committee says Eastman has failed to show he had a legitimate attorney-client relationship with Trump, and that even if he did, the House’s need for the documents requires waiving the privilege. House lawyers argued in court papers that Eastman may have conspired with Trump to commit multiple crimes — including felony obstruction of Congress — in the aftermath of the election.

Eastman’s theory centered on Pence, who was required by the Constitution to preside over a joint session of Congress to count the votes cast by the Electoral College. Though it’s typically a ceremonial event, Eastman developed a theory — and convinced Trump to back him — that Pence could simply refuse to count the votes of several key states Biden won. The most extreme version of his plan called for Pence to simply declare Trump the winner on the spot. The version Eastman suggested would have buy-in from Thomas, according to Jacob, would have had Pence postpone the count and ask GOP state legislatures in Biden-won states to consider replacing Democratic electors with Trump loyalists.

Jacob told the select committee that when Eastman pushed this idea, he replied, “If this case got to the Supreme Court, we’d lose 9-0, wouldn’t we, if we actually took your position and it got up there?”

Eastman said he actually believed the court would vote 7-2, Jacob recalled.

“And I said, ‘Who are the two?’ And he said, ‘Well, I think maybe Clarence Thomas.’ And I said, ‘Really? Clarence Thomas?’ And so we went through a few Thomas opinions and, finally, he acknowledged, ‘yeah, all right, it would be 9-0.’”

Jacob told the committee he couldn’t remember the other justice Eastman had mentioned as a potential vote in Trump’s favor.

However, in a Dec. 11 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas, splitting from the rest of the court, to say they would have docketed a challenge some conservative states brought against election procedures in more liberal ones. Both justices indicated, though, that they wouldn’t have stepped in to grant the emergency relief the red states sought.

Thomas’ more recent vote against the select committee’s effort to obtain Trump-related records through the National Archives — he was the lone dissent — has sparked renewed controversy in light of the emergence of his wife’s messages with Meadows. Though it’s not clear any of her correspondence were, or should have been, included in the Archives files, it has sparked questions about whether Thomas should have recused from the matter.

When Eastman appeared before the committee to plead the Fifth, committee counsel John Wood asked him about Jacob’s view that not a single Supreme Court justice would have supported Eastman’s plan.

“Dr. Eastman, did you, in fact, agree with Mr. Jacob that not a single member of the Supreme Court would support your position?” Wood asked.

“Fifth,” Eastman replied

“And, Dr. Eastman, which position was that that Mr. Jacobs said not a single member of the Supreme Court would support?” Wood asked.

“Fifth,” Eastman said again.

On Jan. 6, as rioters bore down on the Capitol, Eastman and Jacob engaged in a tense email exchange, in which Jacob accused Eastman of being a “serpent in the ear” of the president and encouraging him to embrace unsupportable legal theories. He reiterated his belief that no justice of the Supreme Court or appeals court judge would have agreed with Eastman’s strategy.

Eastman replied that he disagreed, arguing that if Pence had postponed the session and called on the state legislatures to act, the courts may have demurred.

“I remain of the view not only would that have been the most prudent course … but also had a fair chance of being approved (or at least not enjoined) by the courts,” Eastman wrote.

After another brief disagreement, Eastman closed his email exchange with Jacob: “When this is over, we should have a good bottle of wine over a nice dinner someplace.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/26/ginni-thomas-west-wing-trump-john-eastman-00020675

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #356 on: March 27, 2022, 02:53:32 PM »


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #357 on: March 28, 2022, 01:12:47 PM »
NEW: Joe Biden recently rejected an attempt top Trump aide Dan Scavino to assert executive privilege in order to avoid testifying to the Jan. 6 select committee.

The letter was among documents the committee will use to hold Scavino in contempt tomorrow.




Here's how Peter NAVARRO responded when first contacted by the select committee.

He'll also be held in contempt tomorrow.




MORE: The select committee is fixed on Scavino's fluid role between official WH and campaign. His political efforts to keep Trump in power, organize Jan. 6 rally and overturn election don't fit any definition of executive privilege, they say.

Contempt report: Biden turned down privilege claim by Dan Scavino

The disclosure comes as the Jan. 6 committee prepares to begin contempt proceedings against the longtime Trump social media manager and another aide, Peter Navarro.



President Joe Biden turned down an effort by Dan Scavino, the longtime social media manager for Donald Trump, to resist the Jan. 6 select committee by asserting executive privilege.

The disclosure came as part of a 34-page report released on Sunday evening by congressional investigators as the Jan. 6 committee prepared to begin contempt proceedings against Scavino and Peter Navarro, another ally in the former president’s last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 election results.

“President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and therefore is not justified,” the White House counsel’s office informed Scavino on March 15, according to the newly posted materials.

Biden’s decision is the latest in a string of rejections for Trump advisers seeking to frustrate the select committee by citing executive privilege. The White House has issued similar statements pertaining to former chief of staff Mark Meadows and others who have insisted their proximity to Trump in the closing weeks of his presidency made them immune from testimony. Biden has also repeatedly denied Trump’s own efforts to claim executive privilege over his White House files — a decision repeatedly upheld by federal courts.

The decision to seek criminal charges against Scavino and Navarro is an indication the select committee no longer believes it can obtain their testimony or records through negotiations. The panel detailed its lengthy effort to reach agreement with Scavino in correspondence that began in October and stretched for months, culminating in Sunday’s contempt report.

Scavino is a particularly crucial witness for the committee. He helped draft or post Trump tweets in the weeks after the 2020 election, stoking misinformation about the results and driving attendance at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally, which later morphed into a violent insurrection at the Capitol. The committee also revealed that Scavino spoke multiple times by phone with Trump on Jan. 6 and has insight into his movements that day.

Scavino and Navarro are slated to join Steve Bannon, Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as the only witnesses held in contempt by the select committee so far. Scavino, Bannon and Meadows were included in the panel’s first wave of subpoenas in September. Bannon and Meadows were both subsequently held in contempt by the House and referred to the Justice Department for criminal charges. The full House hasn’t acted on the motion holding Clark in contempt after he indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Bannon was quickly charged in November for his refusal to cooperate, while the case against Meadows is still pending. Meadows briefly cooperated, providing thousands of emails and text messages to the committee before reversing course and refusing to appear for a deposition. If the House follows suit and holds Scavino and Navarro in contempt, it will leave two more high-profile charging decisions in the hands of Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

The panel has homed in on Scavino’s amorphous role as a both a senior White House official and a prominent campaign operative, who flitted easily between both worlds and often mixed official and political work. The committee says Scavino has no justification for trying to shield testimony related to efforts to keep Trump in office, since the Hatch Act bars such political work by government officials.

“His two distinct roles — as White House official in the days leading up to and during the attack, and as a campaign social media promoter of the Trump ‘stolen election’ narrative — provide independent reasons to seek his testimony and documents,” the committee wrote in its contempt report.

The panel argues Scavino was not conducting “privileged” business when he participated in discussions about pressuring state lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election, when he helped recruit attendance at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally and when he engaged with organizers of the rally about the speaker lineup and his own scheduled remarks.

Much of the select committee’s report documents the extensive, and increasingly fraught, communications between Scavino’s attorneys and the Jan. 6 select committee, beginning in October and continuing into March. The panel sought to schedule multiple depositions with Scavino, only to agree to a slew of extensions as he continued to haggle about the terms of his testimony. Talks broke down by February, when Scavino’s attorneys — Stanley Woodward and Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the House — decried the committee’s tactics.

“Put bluntly, your latest correspondence exemplifies the Select Committee’s pattern and practice of intimidation and disregard for the rule of law, its application to the important function of the House of Representatives, and the important doctrine of Separation of Powers,” they wrote.

The lawyers noted that in Bannon’s case, his attorney Robert Costello ended up becoming a witness in the ultimate criminal cases against him brought by the Justice Department.

In a final letter to the panel on Friday, Brand and Woodward said they were seeking more details about the legal basis for Biden’s decision.

“We respectfully request you inform Mr. Scavino and the Select Committee of any legal authority empowering President Biden to make a final decision as to the assertion of executive privilege with respect to the Congressional testimony of a former President’s close aides,” they wrote. “Otherwise, we respectfully request the President advise Mr. Scavino and the Select Committee that no such legal authority exists.”

Navarro, the committee indicated, similarly conducted nakedly political work that could not be construed as part of his government duties. The panel notes that he crafted a report lodging false claims of election fraud that fed the narratives that Trump attempted to deploy in his effort to subvert his defeat. The select committee revealed that at one point he tried to encourage Meadows to contact Roger Stone, a longtime outside adviser to Trump who helped drive “Stop the Steal” efforts.

“None of the official responsibilities of Mr. Navarro’s positions included advising President Trump about the 2020 Presidential election or the roles and responsibilities of Congress and the Vice President during the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress,” the panel wrote. “Nor did those official duties involve researching or promoting claims of election fraud. Nevertheless, after the 2020 Presidential election, Mr. Navarro became involved in efforts to convince the public that widespread fraud had affected the election. Federal law did not allow Mr. Navarro to use his official office to attempt to affect the outcome of an election.”

Scavino’s fight with the select committee over his subpoena is not his only legal battle connected to the investigation. He sued in January to prevent Verizon from turning over his phone records to the select committee, but his effort to resist the panel’s subpoena for his documents and testimony had proceeded in near total secrecy. The lawsuit is still pending.

The committee subpoenaed Navarro in February, and the former Trump trade adviser has publicly indicated he will not comply with the panel’s demands, citing concerns about executive privilege. He released a statement Sunday evening indicating his position had not changed.

“My position remains this is not my Executive Privilege to waive and the Committee should negotiate this matter with President Trump,” Navarro said. “If he waives the privilege, I will be happy to comply; but I see no effort by the Committee to clarify this matter with President Trump, which is bad faith and bad law.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/27/contempt-report-biden-privilege-claim-dan-scavino-00020749

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #358 on: March 28, 2022, 01:39:00 PM »
Lots of new information is coming out. I've documented the main portions in this post.

January 6th Committee chair Bennie G Thompson released a report recommending contempt referrals for Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino.

Here, the report notes Navarro went on Ari Melber's show a day after releasing a statement stonewalling the committee.

Doc: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ00/20220328/114565/HRPT-117-NA.pdf



The report also details the "Green Bay Sweep," a plot to overturn Trump's election defeat that Navarro detailed in his book.

Watch The Washington Post's video explainer here: 




"In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, according to evidence obtained by the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro also encouraged Mark Meadows (and possibly others) to call Roger Stone to discuss January 6th."



"On January 6th, the day to implement the ‘Green Bay Sweep,’ Mr. Navarro had multiple calls with Mr. Bannon, including during and after the attack on the U.S. Capitol."



The portions of the report on Scavino focus on his role as Trump's social media manager—and reportedly his sometime-tweet-ghostwriter.

Scavino also monitored TheDonald [dot] win, an online forum visited by folks who "openly advocated and planned violence" leading up to Jan. 6.



More on that site:

On Dec. 19, 2020, the same day Trump tweeted "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th... Be there, will be wild!," the site's users began sharing "specific techniques, tactics, and procedures for the assault on the Capitol," according to the report.



Remember the Jan. 6 defendant known as "zip-tie guy"?

One poster on TheDonald[dot]win wrote that "people should bring 'handcuffs and zip ties to DC' so they could enact 'citizen’s arrests' of those officials who certified the election’s results."


Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8177
Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #359 on: March 28, 2022, 02:12:06 PM »
Jan. 6 investigators about to get their hands on final piece of the puzzle showing militia plans for Capitol riot



The House select committee expects to soon fill in one final piece of the puzzle about the planning for the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Congressional investigators will hear testimony next week they expect will reveal the connections between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys militia groups, and after that April 5 deposition lawmakers will have obtained all the major evidence from all the crucial moments, reported The Guardian.

"From its nondescript offices boarded up with beige boards and wood-paneled conference rooms with blinds always drawn, the select committee has spent the last eight months working in color-coded teams in an attempt to untangle Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results," wrote the newspaper's Hugo Lowell.

"The gold team is examining Trump’s plans to stop the certification of Biden’s election win with the help of Republican members of Congress, and his pressure campaign on state, local and justice department officials to return himself to office," Lowell added. "The red team is looking at the Save America rally organizers and the Stop the Steal Movement, while the purple team is scrutinizing the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the 1st Amendment Praetorian and how militia groups helped lead the Trump mob into the Capitol building."

Senior investigative counsel Sean Tonolli set up a deposition for next week that will give them sworn testimony and material evidence about the militia groups' connections, to add to raw video footage of a meeting between leaders from the militias in a garage near the Capitol the night before the riot.

The panel is moving into the next phase of its investigation, and lawmakers expect to release their evidence in narrative form in a series of public hearings that have been delayed from April to May that will focus on former president Donald Trump's wrongdoing, which will then be used to recommend legislation to prevent another insurrection.


Capitol attack panel expects to hear how militia groups coordinated plans before insurrection
Testimony could play a major role in establishing whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy in efforts to overturn 2020 election



Behind closed doors in a nondescript conference room at the foot of Capitol Hill, the House select committee investigating 6 January next week expects to hear testimony about the connections between the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys militia groups and the Capitol attack.

The panel expects to hear how the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys coordinated their plans and movements in the days before the insurrection to the same level of detail secured by the justice department and referenced in recent prosecutions for seditious conspiracy.

And the select committee hopes to also hear in the 5 April deposition – arranged by a senior counsel for the panel – private conversations between the leaders of the two militia groups and whether they might have communicated with any Trump advisers.

The panel should get the evidence both on the record and under oath, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement, to add to raw video footage of a meeting between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leaders in a garage across from the Capitol on the eve of 6 January.

The expected testimony and materials represent another significant breakthrough for the investigation and could play a major role in establishing for the select committee whether Donald Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy as part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Most crucially for the panel, it could form part of the evidence to connect the militia groups that stormed the Capitol on 6 January to the organizers of the Save America rally that immediately preceded the attack – who in turn are slowly being linked to the Trump White House.

As the select committee moves closer to Trump – who House investigators alleged in a recent court filing that the former president violated federal laws including obstructing Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States as he sought to return himself to power – it is redoubling its efforts.

The information that Sean Tonolli, the senior investigative counsel who set up the deposition, should obtain about the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in the first week of April means the panel has managed to get all the major evidence for all the big moments.

In December, the select committee revealed that it had in its possession 2,320 text messages from Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, emails such as one with a PowerPoint presentation on staging a coup, and other documents he had turned over to the inquiry.

That alone has been seen as a treasure trove of materials, including messages to and from House Republicans who apologized for not being able to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, and more recently, messages with Ginni Thomas, the wife of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.

In January, the panel got from the National Archives thousands of pages of Trump White House documents that the former president unsuccessfully sought to shield over claims of executive privilege in a case that Justice Thomas reviewed and emerged as the sole dissenter.

Those included documents in the files of Meadows and former deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin, among others, and Trump’s private schedule for 6 January that showed he gave the crowd a false pretense to go to the Capitol perhaps in the hope that they might stop Biden’s certification.

Then the select committee learned of the fake electors ploy – a scheme to send “alternate” slates of Trump electors to Congress in states won by Biden – that ensnared the White House and showed the involvement of some of Trump’s most senior aides.

Earlier this month, the panel also revealed in separate litigation that Trump lawyer John Eastman knew that his plan to have then-vice president Mike Pence reject Biden’s wins in select battleground states and return Trump to office was an unlawful violation of the Electoral Count Act.

The panel has so far conducted the vast majority of its investigation in private, conducting nearly 750 depositions behind closed doors, amassing more than 84,000 documents and pursuing more than 430 tips that have come through on its website tip line.

But notwithstanding the secrecy, the select committee has uncovered extraordinary information that have put them several steps closer to potentially forcing them to make criminal referrals to the justice department once the inquiry is complete, the sources said.

What the panel has found and made public so far, the sources said, could also lay the groundwork to sketch out a criminal conspiracy that connects Trump’s political plan to return himself to office with the attack itself – its ultimate suspicion, the Guardian first reported.

From its nondescript offices boarded up with beige boards and wood-paneled conference rooms with blinds always drawn, the select committee has spent the last eight months working in color-coded teams in an attempt to untangle Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

The gold team is examining Trump’s plans to stop the certification of Biden’s election win with the help of Republican members of Congress, and his pressure campaign on state, local and justice department officials to return himself to office.

The red team is looking at the Save America rally organizers and the Stop the Steal Movement, while the purple team is scrutinizing the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the 1st Amendment Praetorian and how militia groups helped lead the Trump mob into the Capitol building.

As the panel moves into the second phase of its investigation, its members have said they want to release in narrative form the evidence of wrongdoing in a series of public hearings that are likely to be delayed from April to May but still focus on how Trump broke the law.

The select committee’s purpose remains to recommend legislative reforms to prevent a repeat of 6 January, but the evidence collected by the panel is fast hurtling it towards a conclusion of criminal behavior that could implicate Trump – and necessitate a referral – the sources said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/28/capitol-attack-panel-militia-groups-oath-keepers-proud-boys

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: 1/6 Insurrection Investigation
« Reply #359 on: March 28, 2022, 02:12:06 PM »