⮞⮞ Trump Loyalists Are Running Out the Clock ⮜⮜

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

Trump is Running Out the Clock on the January 6 Probe

Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, and Trump himself
are thwarting investigators
with legal battles that may outlive the probe.


Source: Bloomberg Businessweek
Almost a year after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, close allies of former President Donald Trump are stonewalling the congressional panel investigating the insurrection. Despite compiling evidence and sharing vivid glimpses of how key figures in the Republican political and media worlds responded as the attack unfolded, the House committee has so far been thwarted in its efforts to get firsthand accounts from Trump’s inner circle about what the president knew and did that day.

That insider testimony may never arrive. A succession of Trump partisans has been trying to stall the investigation with a legal battle that’s unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

In November, Steve Bannon, once Trump’s chief White House strategist, earned a rare criminal charge of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the committee. Others have since followed his lead.

Trump’s last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, initially cooperated with committee investigators, sharing thousands of documents and communications from the day of the attack. At a Dec. 14 hearing, Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican and the committee’s vice chair, read a series of explosive text messages from Meadows’s phone. (Among them: “We need an Oval address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand,” Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. texted.)

But Meadows came under heavy criticism from Trump’s allies and broke off cooperation. His refusal to testify resulted in the House voting to hold him in criminal contempt of Congress, referring the matter to the U.S. Justice Department.

Republicans close to Trump say such outright resistance is the new standard of loyalty to the former president. “Bannon’s position of strength is an example to others,” says Boris Epshteyn, former White House special assistant to Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump’s estranged former lawyer, agrees that stonewalling by key witnesses is “designed to please a party of one.”

The list of notable Trump allies declining to cooperate is growing longer by the week. On Dec. 17, Roger Stone, a longtime Trump confidante, appeared before the committee to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to questions. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek beforehand, Stone slammed the committee as “a partisan witch hunt.” John Eastman, a conservative attorney who advised Trump on ways to overturn the 2020 presidential election, has sued Verizon Communications Inc. and the House committee to prevent investigators from obtaining his cellphone data.

People outside Trump’s immediate circle are also defying committee summonses. Republican Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania said on Dec. 21 that he’ll refuse a request to appear before the panel. Faced with a subpoena, far-right radio broadcaster Alex Jones sued the committee and said he intends to plead the Fifth like Stone.

Bannon has been explicit about his desire to sabotage the investigation, even as he faces the possibility of jail time, warning that his contempt charge will boomerang on Democrats and become “the misdemeanor from hell” for Attorney General Merrick Garland, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Joe Biden. It has, at the very least, proved a headache for the committee because Bannon and others have used the courts to delay their reckoning.

Bannon has invoked Trump’s claim of executive privilege as the reason he won’t testify. Meadows has signaled he’ll do the same. Trump’s own efforts to thwart the committee are also dragging out the probe, even though his legal argument for doing so is seen by experts as shaky at best.

In October the former president sued to block the National Archives from handing over his White House records related to Jan. 6, claiming the documents and communications are protected by his executive privilege—even though he’s no longer in office and Biden waived it.

Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, says the limits of executive privilege are evident in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that forced then-President Richard Nixon to hand over audio recordings of his Oval Office conversations in the Watergate investigation: The court said Nixon’s privilege claim was outweighed by the public’s right to information. Wehle expects that precedent will apply to Trump.

“When you’re talking about a bloody insurrection that’s looking more and more like a deliberate, planned effort to sway the election to the loser and take it away from the American people, Nixon is a pretty good authority for holding that even if Meadows or Trump have executive privilege, it’s waived here,” Wehle says.

Trump suffered a setback on Dec. 9, when the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled he’d provided “no basis” for overriding Biden’s assessment of the executive branch interests at stake.

“The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted,” the unanimous three-judge panel said in the ruling affirming the committee’s right to seek the evidence.

But even unfavorable court rulings may not produce the testimony the committee seeks. Trump has vowed to take his case to the Supreme Court. Lawyers close to the case say it’s likely to end up there, with the legal fight over executive privilege already proceeding along two parallel tracks—Trump’s case and Bannon’s—and possibly soon a third (Meadows’s). That process would take months to play out, and it could well outlast the committee.

Many Trump allies are betting Republicans will win control of the House in November and shut down the investigation once they’re in power, denying the panel the firsthand accounts from Bannon and other key figures that it seeks. Experts see few options for heading off this scenario.

“It just takes way too long to adjudicate these things, and there are too many layers of appeal, especially when you’re on a ticking clock like the committee is—it can just take too long,” says former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers. “It’s a tactic that Trump and his allies have really taken advantage of through the whole Trump administration.”


..
The Lower Courts seem iffy at best on which way they would rule on many of the Executive Privilege claims already on record regarding The House Committee on the January 6th Capital Protests, but virtually to the man, the Trump Loyalists insist that they have the ability to take any negative decision all the way up to the Conservative United States Supreme Court.

Many Legal Experts say that it would take many months to exhaust all the Loyalist's lower court routes of appeal, & that's before getting to the United States Supreme Court. Once hitting the US Supreme Court it can be held up for many months more.....

Being that an extremely high percentage of Mid-Term Elections go to the opposition Party, based on history alone, the Republicans seem a cinch to rest the House (presently an ultra-slim 51% - 49% democ-rat majority of 433 total seats) & Senate (present 50 - 50 even split of 100 total seats) from the democ-rats in the 2022 Elections, so if history alone holds true, the democ-rats will lose the majority needed to run a 'January 6th Committee', ending all January 6th investigations dead in their tracks way before any final ruling on Executive Privilege might even see the light of day!!




..
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
Do you still support terrorists panther?
Do you support terrorism panther?
@JimPeccary

I'll repeat it once again, & for the last time asshole:

Nope.....never have, never will............

But, that said, it's always been a known fact that 'one person's terrorist, can be another person's freedom fighter'........the phrase of ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’ can be said to refer to, as the contradiction of someone being a ‘terrorist’ to one person and a ‘freedom fighter’ to another, & points to the obvious difference in opinion & perception of one & the same act, same individual, or same group.
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
They were attempting to disrupt the EC count to decide who won the election.

They were terrorists!
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
They were attempting to disrupt the EC count to decide who won the election.

They were terrorists!
I disagree with the terminology........I will only concede that they were nothing more than a band of frustrated, dumb ass, unruly demonstrators & protestors ........ I, along with many Americans....many more Americans than Australia has Australians......choose to differ with you on our diametrically opposite opinions on what they were.

The numbers are immaterial except to say that there are many who have similar opposing opinions of what they were, as you & I do.

When all is said & done, in the end, we may eventually find that the true answer may actually reside somewhere in between....
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
I disagree with the terminology........I will only concede that they were nothing more than a band of frustrated, dumb ass, unruly demonstrators & protestors ........ I, along with many Americans....many more than Australia has Australians......choose to differ with you on our diametrically opposite opinions on what they were.

The numbers are immaterial except to say that there are many who have similar opposing opinions of what they were, as you & I do.

When all is said & done, in the end, we may find that the true answer may reside somewhere in between....
Perhaps the insurrectionists can use the defense that they were mentally deranged and turned into political flesh-eating zombies by the ingestion of huge clouds of anus gas which are normally liberated at Trump rallies.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Nope.....never have, never will............

But, that said, it's always been a known fact that 'one person's terrorist, can be another person's freedom fighter'....

so your answer is No, you don't support terrorists, unless they're on your 'side'. Thanks
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
I disagree with the terminology........I will only concede that they were nothing more than a band of frustrated, dumb ass, unruly demonstrators & protestors ........ I, along with many Americans....many more Americans than Australia has Australians......choose to differ with you on our diametrically opposite opinions on what they were.

The numbers are immaterial except to say that there are many who have similar opposing opinions of what they were, as you & I do.

When all is said & done, in the end, we may eventually find that the true answer may actually reside somewhere in between....
If they were attempting to disrupt the count of a democratic national election to have an orange buffoon declared POTUS despite the election result that makes them terrorists.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
I respect your personal opinion, but it is nothing more, nothing less, than just an opinion nevertheless........an opinion I don't share.......they were nothing more than a band of frustrated, dumb ass, unruly demonstrators & protestors........that's a personal opinion that I am far from alone in having.


We can agree to disagree.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
They were attempting to disrupt the EC count to decide who won the election.

They were terrorists!
What they did was the the dictionary definition of domestic terrorism: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

They were terrorists, pure and simple.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Another personal opinion, understandable & consistant, but one I don't subscribe to....see the above for my opinion if you wish.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Another personal opinion, understandable & consistant, but one I don't subscribe to....see the above for my opinion if you wish.
it's not a personal opinion, it's the very definition of terrorist. That's as far from opinion as you can get
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
Another personal opinion, ...
No. Not a personal opinion at all.

It's the universally agreed upon definition of domestic terrorism.

Trump's cult members who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were terrorists, and as a result, many of them are now serving long prison sentences.

You can't change history, or the definition of terms, no matter how hard you try.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member

.....Trump's cult members who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were terrorists, and as a result, many of them are now serving long prison sentences.......




Really??

Long Prison Terms you say??!!

That's a lie even by your own warped 'personal lie standards' Gweggy....


Long Sentences For 'TERRORISM' you say??!!

Maybe by the 'Soft on Crime' Aussie Standard they're long.....




Little Punishment:
Inside the Sentences since the Capitol Attack

More than 150 people have pleaded guilty for crimes committed on Jan. 6, 2021.
POLITICO is analyzing and tracking every sentence handed down.


Source: Politico
.........Of the 70-plus people who have been sentenced, fewer than half have received prison time for their actions in the days surrounding the riot.

That’s in part because many of those sentenced so far were only convicted of illegally entering the Capitol building, and were not involved in the more violent and destructive aspects related to storming the building. Only seven defendants have been sentenced for felony charges, as of late December.

Among those defendants who are being incarcerated, their stints in prison are often somewhat brief. The median prison sentence to date is 45 days............continued.....
 
Last edited:
Top