Posts by stl1

1. 2022-06-19 at 3:36 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   JAIL DONALD TRUMP...JAIL DONALD TRUMP...
   
   
   Georgia election investigation 'will send Donald Trump to jail': former Watergate prosecutor
   Raw Story
   By Tom Boggioni
   
   
   According to former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman, he has no doubt that there is an ironclad case brewing in Georgia that will lead to an indictment and conviction of Donald Trump.
   
   Speaking with MSNBC host Katie Phang, Akerman said the evidence is overwhelming that the former president tried to steal the election in the Peachtree state as evidenced by the phone call made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger demanding he find enough votes to secure the state's 16 Electoral College votes.
   
   'You mentioned that you guys had tapes in the Nixon Watergate situation," host Phang pointed out. "We have a tape, though. We have that tape of Donald Trump pressuring Brad Raffensperger. In your opinion, you don't think that is going to be enough?"
   
   "Oh I think that is enough," Akerman replied. "If you are asking which of the cases right now, which one is going to send Donald Trump to prison, that is the case. There is a really neat three-year felony in Georgia, that Donald Trump has violated. Prosecutors love tape-recorded evidence because you cannot cross-examine it"
   
   "What is significant though, with those cases, is that when you put in the context of all of the evidence that's the January six committee has uncovered. When you put that together, Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia," he added. "If I had to put my money on one prosecution that is going to go forward here, that one will send Donald Trump to jail, it is Georgia -- no question about it."
   
   "The only defense that he has got here is trying to somehow pick up on some ambiguity in the tape, that he did not really mean what he said," he elaborated. "But once you look at what he said, trying to get Brad Raffensperger to come up with extra votes to make him a winner in Georgia, and put in the context about the January 6th committee has found, I think they have gotten a case beyond a reasonable doubt."
2. 2022-06-19 at 3:13 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   
   JAIL DONALD TRUMP...JAIL DONALD TRUMP...
   
   
   
   
   The Guardian
   Searing testimony increases odds of charges against Trump, experts say
   Peter Stone
   
   
   The searing testimony and growing evidence about Donald Trump’s central role in a multi-pronged conspiracy to overturn Joe Biden’s election in 2020 presented at the House January 6 committee’s first three hearings, has increased the odds that Trump will face criminal charges, say former DoJ prosecutors and officials.
   
   The panel’s initial hearings provided a kind of legal roadmap about Trump’s multi-faceted drives – in tandem with some top lawyers and loyalists – to thwart Biden from taking office, that should benefit justice department prosecutors in their sprawling investigations into the January 6 assault on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.
   
   Ex-justice department lawyers say new revelations at the hearings increase the likelihood that Trump will be charged with crimes involving conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding or defrauding the United States, as he took desperate and seemingly illegal steps to undermine Biden’s election.
   
   Trump could also potentially face fraud charges over his role in an apparently extraordinary fundraising scam – described by House panel members as the “big rip-off” – that netted some $250m for an “election defense fund” that did not exist but funneled huge sums to Trump’s Save America political action committee and Trump properties.
   
   The panel hopes to hold six hearings on different parts of what its vice-chair, Liz Cheney, called Trump’s “sophisticated seven-part plan” to overturn the election.
   
   Trump was told repeatedly, for instance, by top aides and cabinet officials – including ex-attorney general Bill Barr – that the election was not stolen, and that his fraud claims were “completely bullshit” and “crazy stuff” as Barr put it in a video of his scathing deposition. But Trump persisted in pushing baseless fraud claims with the backing of key allies including his ex-personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman.
   
   “The January 6 committee’s investigation has developed substantial, compelling evidence that Trump committed crimes, including but not limited to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct official proceedings,” Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general at the DoJ told the Guardian.
   
   Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, told the Guardian that “the committee hearings have bolstered the need to seriously consider filing criminal charges against Trump”.
   
   The crux of any prosecution of Trump would hinge heavily on convincing a jury that Trump knew he lost the election and acted with criminal intent to overturn the valid election results. The hearings have focused heavily on testimony that Trump fully knew he had lost and went full steam ahead to concoct schemes to stay in power.
   
   New revelations damaging to Trump emerged on Thursday when Greg Jacob, the ex-counsel to former vice-president Mike Pence, recounted in detail how Eastman and Trump waged a high-pressure drive, publicly and privately, even as the Capitol was under attack, to prod Pence to unlawfully block Biden’s certification by Congress on January 6.
   
   The Eastman pressure included a scheme to substitute pro-Trump fake electors from states that Biden won for electors rightfully pledged to Biden – a scheme the DoJ has been investigating for months and that now involves a grand jury focused on Eastman, Giuliani and several other lawyers and operatives.
   
   Eastman at one point acknowledged to Jacob that he knew his push to get Pence on January 6 to reject Biden’s winning electoral college count would violate the Electoral Count Act, and that Trump, too, was told it would be illegal for Pence to block Biden’s certification.
   
   Paul Pelletier, a former acting chief of the DoJ’s fraud section, said: “It is a target-rich environment, with many accessories both before and after the fact to be investigated.”
   
   But experts caution any decision to charge Trump will be up to the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, who has been careful not to discuss details of his department’s January 6 investigations, which so far have led to charges against more than 800 individuals, including some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy.
   
   After the first two hearings, Garland told reporters, “I’m watching and I will be watching all the hearings,” adding that DoJ prosecutors are doing likewise.
   
   Garland remarked in reference to possibly investigating Trump: “We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead … to hold all perpetrators who are criminally responsible for January 6 accountable, regardless of their level, their position, and regardless of whether they were present at the events on January 6.”
   
   But Garland has not yet tipped his hand if Trump himself is under investigation. Despite that reticence, justice department veterans say the wealth of testimony from one-time Trump insiders and new revelations at the House hearings should spur the department to investigate and charge Trump.
   
   Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan, said the panel’s early evidence was strong, including “video testimony of Trump insiders who told Trump that he was going to lose badly, and that with regard to claims of election fraud, there was ‘no there there’,” as Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows acknowledged in one exchange made public at the hearings.
   
   McQuade added that Barr’s testimony was “devastating for Trump. He and other Trump insiders who testified about their conversations with Trump established that Trump knew he had lost the election and continued to make public claims of fraud anyway. That knowledge can help establish the fraudulent intent necessary to prove criminal offenses against Trump.”
   
   In a novel legal twist that could emerge if Trump is charged, Bromwich said: “Bizarrely, Trump’s best defense to the mountain of evidence that proves these crimes seems to be that he was incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to convict. That he was detached from reality, in Barr’s words. But there is strong evidence that he is not crazy – but instead is crazy like a fox.
   
   “How else to explain his attempts to pressure the Georgia secretary of state to ‘find the votes’ necessary to change the result? Or his telling DoJ officials to simply declare the election ‘corrupt’ and leave ‘the rest to me’ and Republican House allies?”
   
   Bromwich added: “All of this shows not someone incapable of forming criminal intent, but someone who understood what the facts were and was determined not to accept them. Because he couldn’t stand to lose. That was far more important to him than honoring our institutions or the constitution.”
   
   Former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said Trump could face charges over what Cheney called the “big rip-off”, which centers on the allegation that “Trump raised money from small-dollar donors after the election under false pretenses”.
   
   Zeldin said: “Specifically, he asked for money to fight election fraud when, in fact, the money was used for other purposes. This type of conduct could violate the wire fraud statute.”
   
   Ayer cited the importance of a justice department regulation identifying factors to consider in deciding whether to charge, and noted three of particular relevance to Trump – the nature and severity of the offence, the important deterrent effect of prosecutions, and the culpability of the individual being charged.
   
   But it might not be all plain sailing.
   
   Simmering tensions between the panel and the justice department have escalated over DoJ requests – rebuffed so far – to obtain 1,000 witness transcripts of committee interviews, which prosecutors say are needed for upcoming trials of Proud Boys and other cases. However, the New York Times has reported some witness transcripts could be shared next month.
   
   Nonetheless, as Garland weighs whether to move forward with investigating and charging Trump, experts caution a prosecution of Trump would require enormous resources, given the unprecedented nature of such a high-stakes case, and the risks that a jury could end up acquitting Trump – which might only enhance his appeal to the Republican base. Yet at the same time ,the stakes for the country of not aggressively investigating Trump are also extremely high.
   
   “No one should underestimate the gravity of deciding to criminally charge an ex-president,” said former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut.
   
   For Aftergut, though, charging Trump seems imperative.
   
   “Ultimately, the avalanche of documents and sworn testimony proving a multi-faceted criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of the people means one thing: if no one is above the law, even an ex-president who led that conspiracy must be indicted.”
3. 2022-06-18 at 5:22 PM UTC in 🍬🍬Candy~Land🍬🍬
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit

   Originally posted by frala I CANNOT KEEP MY FIST OUT OF LANNY'S ASS

4. 2022-06-18 at 5:19 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   Trump attempted to destroy democracy.
   
   GET ON TOP OF IT BEFORE WE LOSE OUR COUNTRY TO FASCISM AND AN INSANE TYRANT
5. 2022-06-18 at 5:11 PM UTC in 🍬🍬Candy~Land🍬🍬
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   
   I want to see Trump's fat ass on a bike swallowing the poor defenseless, smothered seat.
6. 2022-06-18 at 5:04 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   REPUBLICANS STILL DENYING REALITY
   
   
   
   
   MarketWatch
   Jan. 6 witnesses push Trump stalwarts back to rabbit hole
   Associated Press
   
   
   One by one, several of Donald Trump’s former top advisers have told a special House committee investigating his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection that they didn’t believe his lies about the 2020 election, and that the former president knew he lost to Joe Biden.
   
   But instead of convincing Trump’s most stalwart supporters, testimony from former attorney general Bill Barr and Trump’s daughter Ivanka about the election and the attack on the U.S. Capitol is prompting many of them to simply reassert their views that the former president was correct in his false claim of victory.
   
   Barr’s testimony that Trump was repeatedly told there was no election fraud? He was paid off by a voting machine company, according to one false claim that went viral this week. Ivanka Trump saying she didn’t believe Trump either? It’s all part of Trump’s grand plan to confuse his enemies and save America.
   
   The claims again demonstrate how deeply rooted Trump’s false narrative about the election has become.
   
   “It’s cognitive dissonance,” said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a Syracuse University professor who has studied how Trump used social media and advertising to mobilize his base.
   
   “If you believe what Trump says, and now Bill Barr and Trump’s own daughter are saying these other things, it creates a crack, and people have to fill it.”
   
   The lawmakers leading the hearings into the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol said one of their goals is to show how Trump repeatedly lied to his supporters in an effort to hold onto power and subvert American democracy.
   
   “President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and he was the true president,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the panel’s vice chair. “As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.”
   
   For those who accept Trump’s baseless claims, Barr’s testimony was especially jarring. In his interview with investigators, he detailed Trump’s many absurd allegations about the election 2020, calling them “bogus” and “idiotic.”
   
   Barr told the committee when he talked with Trump, “there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.”
   
   “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” Barr said.
   
   Following his testimony, many Trump supporters using sites like Reddit, GETTR and Telegram blasted Barr as a turncoat and noted that he’s disputed Trump’s election claims before.
   
   But many others began grasping for alternative explanations for this testimony.
   
   “I’m still hoping Barr is playing a role,” one poster said on a Telegram channel popular with Trump supporters.
   
   One post that spread widely this week suggested Barr was paid by Dominion Voting Systems, a company targeted by Trump and his supporters with baseless claims of vote rigging.
   
   “From 2009 to 2018, DOMINION PAID BARR $1.2 million in cash and granted him another $1.1 million in stock awards, according to SEC filings. (No wonder Barr can’t find any voter fraud!),” the post read.
   
   Wrong “Dominion”. Barr was paid by Dominion Energy, a publicly traded company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, that provides power and heat to customers in several mid-Atlantic states.
   
   Unlike Barr, Ivanka Trump has remained intensely popular with many Trump supporters and is seen by many as her father’s potential successor. That may be why so many had to find an an alternative explanation for why she told Congress she didn’t accept her father’s claims.
   
   Jordan Sather, a leading proponent of the QAnon theory, claims both Barr and Ivanka Trump lied during their testimony on Trump’s orders, part of an elaborate scheme to defeat Trump’s enemies by confusing Congress and the American public.
   
   “I can just imagine Donald Trump telling Ivanka: ‘Hey, go to this hearing, say these things. Screw with their heads,'” Sather said last week on his online show.
   
   Some Trump supporters dismissed Ivanka Trump’s testimony entirely by questioning whether any of it was real. That’s another common refrain seen on far-right message boards. Many posters say they don’t even believe the hearings are happening, but are a Hollywood production starring stand-ins for the former president’s daughter and others.
   
   “She looks different in a big way,” one poster asked on Telegram. “CGI?”
   
   
   
   MAYBE IT'S JUST THE LOOK YOU GET WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT YOU AND YOUR WHOLE DAMN FAMILY IS GOING TO END UP IN THE GRAY BAR HOTEL
7. 2022-06-17 at 2:54 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY'S A CUCK
   
   
   The Boston Globe
   Trump lawyer who pushed plan to overturn election sought presidential pardon, committee shows
   Martin Finucane
   
   
   John Eastman, who pushed the theory that former vice president Mike Pence could block the electoral count, asked former president Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani days after the insurrection if he could receive a pardon, according to evidence obtained by the committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
   
   “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works,” he wrote in an e-mail displayed during the hearing by the committee.
   
   The committee also played video of Eastman invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to testify multiple times during questioning. Eastman invoked the Fifth 100 times, Representative Pete Aguilar, a committee member, said.
   
   Eastman made the request to be put on the list of potential pardon recipients a few days after a Jan. 7 conversation with White House lawyer Eric Herschmann.
   
   In a video released in advance by the committee, Herschmann said that in the call Eastman appeared to still have overturning the election on his mind.
   
   “I said to him, ‘Are you out of your effing mind?’” Herschmann recounts in the testimony, adding that he demanded Eastman say the words “orderly transition.”
   
   Herschmann also said that he advised Eastman, “Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it,” before hanging up on him.
   
   
   
   
   I HOPE TRUMP KEEPS THIS LEVEL OF LEGAL EXPERTISE WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COMES FOR HIM!
8. 2022-06-17 at 5:20 AM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY'S A CUCK
   
   
   The Washington Post
   Trump aides told him that using Pence to overturn election was illegal
   Amy Gardner, Jacqueline Alemany
   
   
   President Donald Trump and his aides knew that it was not legal for his vice president, Mike Pence, to attempt to thwart Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, 2021, but they nonetheless mounted an unrelenting pressure campaign that did not abate even after rioters stormed the Capitol and threatened Pence’s life, according to new evidence presented Thursday by the House committee investigating the attack.
   
   Leading the campaign was Trump lawyer John Eastman, who over the two days before Jan. 6 spoke repeatedly with top Pence aides about whether the vice president would either reject outright Biden’s winning electoral college count or suspend the day’s proceedings to allow seven contested states to reexamine their popular votes, witnesses said.
   
   Pence never considered it, former vice-presidential counsel Greg Jacob testified — and even Eastman acknowledged that the gambit was not legal, Jacob said. In addition to that apparent admission, several former White House aides testified that they — and Pence — told Trump the same.
   
   “I said, ‘John, if the vice president did what you were asking him to do, we would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we?' " Jacob recalled. “And after some further discussion, he acknowledged, ‘Well, yeah, you’re right, we would lose nine to nothing.’ ”
   
   The committee also displayed a Jan. 11, 2021, email from Eastman to Trump’s lead campaign lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, seeking a pardon from the outgoing president, though Eastman did not ultimately receive one. A member of the committee, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said that in his deposition with the committee, the lawyer asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination “a hundred times.”
   
   The House committee, which has spent a year investigating the Jan. 6 attack, continued making its case at Thursday’s three-hour afternoon hearing that the assault was the violent culmination of an attempted coup led by Trump.
   
   With new details and never-before-seen video and photos, the proceeding focused on Pence and his largely ceremonial role presiding over the final step in the quadrennial process of declaring the winner of a presidential election: counting the electoral college vote in a joint session of Congress.
   
   Committee members made the case not only that Trump and his advisers knew that Pence did not have the power to block Biden’s victory, but that their public statements to the contrary incited the rioters who invaded the Capitol that day, some of them chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” as they walked past a mock gallows erected outside the building.
   
   “Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done,” said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee chairman. “The former president wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. Mike Pence said no. He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong.”
   
   The committee presented new evidence of how close the rioters came to confronting Pence — within 40 feet — as his Secret Service detail escorted him to a secure location within the Capitol complex.
   
   “Does it surprise you to see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took?” Aguilar asked Jacob, who was with Pence that day. “Forty feet is the distance from me to you, roughly.”
   
   Jacob replied: “I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved, but I don’t think I was aware that they were as close as that.”
   
   The attack: The Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol was neither a spontaneous act nor an isolated event
   
   Several witnesses said there was never any question that Pence would not interfere with the count that day. The Constitution calls for states to establish how their presidential electors are chosen; all states follow the popular vote. As far as the counting of those electoral votes, the Constitution’s 12th Amendment instructs only that the president of the Senate — Pence at the time — “open all the certificates” and that “the votes will be counted.”
   
   Jacob said Pence began inquiring about his powers and duties to oversee the count in early December.
   
   “There was no way that our framers, who abhorred concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person, particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election, in a role to have a decisive impact on the outcome of the election,” Jacob said.
   
   J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal appeals judge and renowned conservative who advised Pence during the crisis, testified that what Trump was asking Pence to do amounted to “constitutional mischief” and posed a grave threat to American democracy.
   
   
   “I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the vice president overturn the 2020 election,” Luttig testified.
   
   
   None of that stopped Trump from ratcheting up the pressure as the Jan. 6 congressional proceedings approached. On that day, the effort began in the morning, when Trump called Pence at his official residence. Both Jacob and Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, recalled being with the vice president when the call came in, and watching Pence step out of the room.
   
   Several Trump aides — including his daughter, Ivanka — were in the Oval Office at the time and could hear the president’s side of the conversation. In video testimony played at the hearing, Ivanka Trump described her father taking a “different tone” than she had heard him take with the vice president before.
   
   Ivanka Trump also told others in the West Wing that her father had called the vice president “the p-word” and talked about Pence’s lack of courage, her former chief of staff, Julie Radford, testified Thursday. During the conversation, Pence made it clear to Trump that he did not have the authority to do what Trump asked.
   
   The committee also detailed how Trump’s pressuring of Pence during his rally appearance on the Ellipse that day was not part of his original speech, and was instead ad-libbed.
   
   Trump told those gathered that he talked to Pence before the rally about needing to have the “courage” to help him stay in office for four more years.
   
   “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing,” Trump told his supporters. “I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.”
   
   Later, with the attack at the Capitol underway, Trump “poured gasoline on the fire” by tweeting an angry message directed at Pence, Sarah Matthews, a former Trump press aide, said in a videotaped interview with investigators that was aired Thursday.
   
   “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify,” Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m. “USA demands truth!”
   
   The committee showed footage of rioters reading the tweet aloud, and of others angrily demanding Pence’s head. Moments later, rioters inside the Capitol reached the eastern side of the Rotunda.
   
   Several Pence aides testified that they were shocked and disappointed when Trump issued a statement the day before the riot that Pence and Trump were “in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act” in overturning the results of the 2020 election.
   
   Short, Pence’s chief of staff, said the information in the statement was “incorrect” and he recalled an angry conversation with Trump aide Jason Miller, who separately testified that he wrote the statement with Trump’s input.
   
   “I was irritated and expressed displeasure that a statement could have gone out that misrepresented the vice president’s viewpoint without consultation,” Short said he told Miller.
   
   More than any other figure in the days leading to and including Jan. 6, Thursday’s hearing showcased Eastman, a Trump attorney who outlined scenarios for denying Biden the presidency in legal memos and in an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4 with Pence and Trump.
   
   Eastman repeatedly sought to convince Pence and his lawyers that the vice president could unilaterally overturn the results of the election. A prolific emailer, Eastman fought for months to withhold emails the committee requested and only last week did a federal judge order that Eastman hand over an additional 400 documents to the committee.
   
   Thursday was likely only the first hearing to feature Eastman as the committee continues its investigation behind closed doors, shaping the proceedings as new information rolls in.
   
   Thompson said the panel plans to invite Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to be interviewed. The Post reported Wednesday that the committee has obtained email correspondence between Thomas and Eastman. The emails show that Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election were more extensive than previously known, according to two people with knowledge of the correspondence who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
   
   Jacob, along with former Trump White House lawyer Eric Hershmann, made clear in testimony Thursday they believe Eastman’s plan was ridiculous and illegal. Jacob recalled emailing Eastman after Pence had been evacuated to a secure location: “Thanks to your bull---t, we are now under siege.”
   
   Eastman was unrepentant in reply, blaming Pence for not having gone along with the plot, and encouraging Pence’s team to consider a “relatively minor violation” of the law, by adjourning Congress for 10 days so state legislatures could reconsider their electoral college votes. Jacob said Pence described Eastman’s response as “rubber room stuff.”
   
   Hershmann recounted speaking to Eastman the next day, when Eastman brought up a new idea to contest the result in Georgia, “And I said to him, ‘Are you out of your effing mind?’ I said, ‘I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: Orderly transition,' " Herschmann said.
   
   “Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life,'” Herschmann said he added. "'Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it.”
   
   Separately Thursday, tensions ratcheted up between the Jan. 6 committee and the Justice Department, with prosecutors complaining their lack of access to committee interview transcripts is hampering their ability to complete criminal cases, as evidence is aired in widely watched public hearings ahead of key trials.
   
   In a letter to the committee Wednesday, the heads of the Justice Department’s national security and criminal divisions wrote that not granting the department access to transcripts complicates the “ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct.”
   
   The letter is the strongest salvo in the months-long back-and-forth between the committee and the department, whose parallel investigations have generally tried to steer clear of each other but now seem to be on a collision course.
   
   The committee has repeatedly turned to Trump’s own aides, and Republicans generally, to make its case against the former president. Thursday’s hearing at times had the feel of a meeting of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group.
   
   Jacob and Luttig are conservative lawyers. One of Thursday’s questioners was John Wood, a Republican lawyer who noted that he and Eastman clerked for Luttig. Eastman, Jacob and the vice chairwoman of the committee, Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), received their law degrees from the University of Chicago, which is known for producing conservative lawyers.
   
   Luttig on Thursday was unsparing in describing the harm that his fellow conservatives who have cast their lot with Trump could have done to the U.S. government — and still could do.
   
   
   “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy,” Luttig said.
9. 2022-06-16 at 11:06 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
   

   stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
   LANNY IS A CUCK
   
   
   
   Five key takeaways from third January 6 US Capitol riot hearing
   Al Jazeera
   
   
   The United States House committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol last year has turned its attention to former President Donald Trump’s pressure on his vice president to overturn the 2020 elections result.
   
   As the tiebreaker and president of the Senate, Mike Pence ceremoniously presided over the certification of the vote on January 6, 2021.
   
   Witnesses, including many Pence aides and advisers, testified in detail before the panel on Thursday about Trump’s push to convince the then-vice president to overturn the election results.
   
   Here is a look at five key takeaways from the third public hearing this month:
   
   Pence had no constitutional authority to overturn election: Witnesses
   
   Several witnesses testified on Thursday that Pence had no legal power to interfere with the election results, stressing that there is no precedent in US history for what Trump was asking his vice president to do.
   
   J Michael Luttig, a retired federal appeals judge, who also previously served as an informal adviser to Pence, drove that point home in his opening remarks. Luttig said if the ex-vice president had obeyed Trump’s orders, it would have caused the first constitutional crisis in US history.
   
   Declaring that Trump won the 2020 election over Joe Biden “would have plunged America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America”, he told the panel.
   
   Luttig later added that the notion that the vice president had a substantive – not merely ceremonial – role in the counting of electoral votes is “constitutional mischief”.
   
   “I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the vice president overturn the 2020 election,” Luttig said.
   
   Trump’s team knew campaign was illegal: Panel
   
   Witnesses suggested on Thursday that Trump and his aides, who were pushing for Pence to overturn the vote, knew that their plan would violate the US Constitution.
   
   “Donald Trump knew he lost the 2020 election, but he could not bring himself to participate in the peaceful transfer of power, so he latched on to a scheme that – once again – he knew was illegal,” said Democratic Congressman Pete Aguilar, who played a leading role at Thursday’s hearing.
   
   Greg Jacob, former counsel to Pence, testified that John Eastman, a Trump lawyer who was pushing for the vice president to overturn election results, acknowledged that the Supreme Court would unanimously rule against such interference.
   
   “Wouldn’t we lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court?” Jacob recalled asking Eastman.
   
   “And again, he initially started: ‘Well, maybe we’d only lose seven to two.’ But ultimately [Eastman] acknowledged that no, we would lose nine-zero. No judge would support his argument.”
   
   Pence’s life was in danger, panel says
   
   The panel said the Capitol rioters came within 12m (40 feet) from where Pence was sheltering inside the building on January 6.
   
   “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger,” Aguilar said. “A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance.”
   
   For his part, Jacob said Pence refused to leave the Capitol building even as it became apparent that rioters were inside.
   
   “The vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol,” Jacob testified.
   
   He said Pence “was determined” to finish his constitutional duty of presiding over the electoral count.
   
   Jacob added that the former vice president wanted to ensure that rioters “would not have the satisfaction of disrupting proceedings beyond the day on which they were supposed to be held”.
   
   In tense call before riots, Trump hurled insults at Pence
   
   Witnesses described a tense call between Trump and Pence on the morning of January 6, before the riots broke out. The then-president hurled insults at his vice president for refusing to overturn election results, according to the testimonies.
   
   Nicholas Luna, a former Trump aide, said in a recording that he remembered Trump calling Pence a “wimp”.
   
   Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, recalled that the conversation was “heated”.
   
   “It was a different tone than I’d heard him take with the vice president before,” she said in a video.
   
   Julie Radford, Ivanka Trump’s former chief of staff, said the former presidential adviser told her that Trump had called Pence “the P-word”.
   
   The committee highlighted how Trump focused his ire on his vice president once Pence refused to disrupt the certification of Biden’s presidential victory.
   
   “We are fortunate for Mr Pence’s courage,” panel chair Bennie Thompson said in his opening testimony.
   
   “On January 6, our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe. That courage put him in tremendous danger. When Mike Pence made it clear that he wouldn’t give in to Donald Trump’s scheme, Donald Trump turned the mob on him.”
   
   Ex-judge says Trump still ‘clear’ danger to US democracy
   
   Luttig, the retired federal judge, said Trump and his allies remain a “clear and present danger to American democracy”.
   
   A conservative legal scholar who was appointed to the federal judiciary by former Republican President George W Bush, Luttig said Trump and his allies are already pledging that they “would attempt to overturn” the 2024 elections if the results do not go their way.
   
   “I don’t speak those words lightly,” Luttig told the committee, delivering his remarks slowly. “I would have never spoken those words ever in my life – except that that’s what the former president and his allies are telling us.”
10. 2022-06-16 at 8:56 PM UTC in Jiggaboo Johnson is severely ill-versed in guns despite living in Tex Jas.
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK
    
    Shlomo got his nose blown off by explosive errant cum he was licking.
11. 2022-06-16 at 8:39 PM UTC in Jiggaboo Johnson is severely ill-versed in guns despite living in Tex Jas.
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK
    
    But, Shlomo has one really clean nostril.
12. 2022-06-16 at 8:31 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK
    
    ORANGE MAN BAD
    
    SHLOMO IS A MORON
    
    
    Trump lawyer who pressured Pence to reject electors asked for pardon after Jan. 6
    Bart Jansen, Chelsey Cox, Erin Mansfield, David Jackson, Kenneth Tran, Katherine Swartz, Dylan Wells and Joey Garrison, USA TODAY
    
    
    WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Mike Pence's refusal to single-handedly reject electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as former President Donald Trump pressured him to do, will be the subject of the Thursday House hearing investigating the Capitol attack.
    
    The latest:
    
    Federal judge: Trump's order would have been 'tantamount to revolution': Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig told the Jan. 6 Committee that had Pence obeyed orders from Trump on Jan. 6, declaring Trump the presidential election winner, it would have "plunged America" into what he says would've been "tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis."
    
    The vice president 'cannot possibly' choose the president: Greg Jacob, counsel to Pence, said that while the Electoral Count Act includes "ambiguous" text, "common sense and structure would tell you" that it "cannot possibly be" that a vice president would have the authority to choose the U.S. president under the Constitution.
    
    Hannity 'very worried: 'Fox News' Sean Hannity told White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in text messages of his concerns around Jan. 6. On Dec. 31, he wrote, "I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told." And on Jan. 5, he texted that he was "very worried about the next 48 hours."
    
    An intense effort to lean on Pence: Rep. Pete Aguilar said the Jan. 6 committee found that by Jan. 4, Trump had "engaged in a quote multi-week campaign to pressure the Vice President to decide the outcome of the election." It involved private conversations, a meeting with Congress and tweets from the president.
    
    Trump lawyer John Eastman's strategy: Eastman "acknowledged" that his proposals would violate provisions of the Electoral Count Act, Pence's former legal counsel Greg Jacob said, adding that Eastman thought this was OK because he viewed the act as unconstitutional.
    'Jump-ball situation': Jacob, in describing the standoff that could arise under Eastman's plans for rejecting electors - assuming courts did not get involved - said result could been an "unprecedented constitutional jump-ball situation" that "might well then have to be decided in the streets."
    
    Pence refused to be seen fleeing Capitol: After being taken to a secure location, Secret Service asked Pence to get in a car. The vice president refused. Jacob said Pence did not want to take any chance that "the world would see the vice president of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol. He was determined that we would complete the work" of certifying the election.
    Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
    
    Eastman sought presidential pardon
    A few days after White House lawyer Eric Herschman advised Trump lawyer John Eastman to “get a great f— criminal defense lawyer” because “you’re going to need it,” Eastman appealed to the president for a pardon.
    
    “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works,” Eastman wrote in an email the committee shared. Trump did not pardon Eastman.
    
    - Erin Mansfield
    
    In deposition to the Jan. 6 Committee, Eastman “plead the fifth 100 times.”
    Ater Trump did not fulfill Eastman’s request of being on the presidential pardon list, Eastman “plead the fifth 100 times,” while being deposed by the Jan. 6 Committee.
    
    In response to numerous questions about Eastman’s actions surrounding his plan to have Pence overturn the election, he constantly replied “fifth.”
    
    Questions included whether or not he advised Trump that Pence could reject electors, if it was true seven states sent dual slates of electors, and if he could discuss his direct conversations with Trump to the committee. All of which Eastman replied “fifth.”
    
    - Kenneth Tran
    
    One Trump lawyer to another: Get a great criminal defense lawyer
    In a promotional tweet Tuesday for the hearing, the committee released video of Eric Hershmann, one of Trump’s lawyers, who described warning Eastman the day after the riot he should find a "great" defense lawyer.
    
    Eastman had contacted Hershmann to chat about Georgia election results because he couldn’t reach other Trump aides. Hershmann questioned Eastman's sanity and told him the only phrase he wanted to hear from Eastman from then on was "orderly transition" to the Biden administration.
    
    "Eventually he said, ‘Orderly transition,'" Hershmann said. "I said, ‘Good, John. Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it.’ Then I hung up on him.”
13. 2022-06-16 at 8:27 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK
14. 2022-06-14 at 9:30 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A TEENAGE CUCK AND FRALA'S OLD ASS IS A CHILD MOLESTER JUST LIKE WARIAT
    
    
    SKUNK NEEDS TO SEND TRUMP MORE MONEY BECAUSE HE IS SO POOR
    
    
    
    Salon
    Yes, Trump supporters are victims of the Big Lie scam. No, you don't have to feel sorry for them
    Amanda Marcotte
    
    
    One of the bigger revelations during the Monday House hearing about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is that the scope of the House committee's investigation had grown beyond Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election. We learned on Monday that they also have evidence that Trump used his coup as a means for financial fraud.
    
    During the entire two and a half months between Election Day and Jan. 6, Trump was shaking down his gullible supporters for cash that he claimed would help fight "election fraud." Those funds, however, largely appeared to go into the pockets of Trump and his allies.
    
    "The big lie was also a big ripoff," declared Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during her opening remarks on Monday. She argued that the campaign used "false claims of election fraud to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from supporters who were told their donations were for the legal fight in the courts." In reality, however, most the money — which is estimated to be a cool $250 million — went into a super PAC. From there, it was redirected into the coffers of Trump himself and towards various friends and family members.
    
    In response to these revelations, there's been a standard response from the anti-Trump majority: Couldn't have happened to nicer people.
    
    Salon started covering the way Trump uses the Big Lie to grift his followers mere days after the 2020 election, so I was used to seeing this reaction. And they will get no argument from me. One really can't deny that Trump's supporters had bad motives and that no one should feel sorry for them. The problem is that the vast majority of Trump's supporters will never admit that they've been had. So it's up to the rest of us to insist that this large-scale cash grab be taken seriously and investigated as a potential crime.
    
    "The big lie was also a big ripoff."
    
    The good news is this: Demanding justice doesn't require sympathizing with victims. Fraud is fraud, no matter how repulsive the victims may be.
    
    There's one way to view Trump's "fundraising" schemes during his coup effort, which is that he snookered gullible people who sincerely believed that the election was "stolen." And that may even be true in some cases. The larger — and uglier — truth, however, is this: Trump separated fools from their money by exploiting their worst instincts.
    
    He made racist appeals about voters in Detroit and Philadelphia being "frauds." Trump's lawyer Sidney Powell promised to "release the Kraken" and excited the "let's go Brandon" crowd because they wanted to swindle Joe Biden's voters out of their victory. A lot of wallets opened up because Trump supporters got caught up in Trump's self-mythologizing about how he knows how to cheat the system, and that he would be able to leverage that talent toward stealing an election. Implicit in Trump's many appeals to his followers was that he would, with enough money, be able to overwhelm the courts with lawsuits until they just gave in and let him keep the White House. And it's no wonder they believed that, as Trump has a long history of abusing the courts with frivolous lawsuits and other resource-wasting tactics to get his way. Trump loves a frivolous lawsuit so much he's been the plaintiff in thousands of cases. But the presidency is too big a prize to obtain through legal harassment, which is why Trump ended up resorting to siccing a violent mob when his court abuse strategy failed.
    
    The adage that "you can't cheat an honest man" has never been truer than when it comes to the GOP base. Indeed, Trump is far from the first to figure out that Republican voters are easy to grift. Historian Rick Perlstein wrote the classic "The Long Con" for the Baffler in 2012, which documented how GOP voters have long been targeted with things like mail order scams. People like Alex Jones make most of their money off hawking snake oil marketed with false promises of vitality and, uh, "enhanced" masculinity. Now you can add cryptocurrency to the pile, as well as the industry of "alternative" COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin.
    
    Trump separated fools from their money by exploiting their worst instincts
    
    Defrauding odious people is just being a smart criminal, precisely because it's so hard to see the marks as victims. There was a great deal of concern over this during the fraud trial for Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos since Holmes tended to steal from absolute monsters. She absconded with money from Rupert Murdoch and the DeVos family and snookered people like Henry Kissinger, all of which is so funny that you almost want to root for her. That's why the prosecution focused so heavily on the patients who got bad test results from the faulty Theranos devices, even though the trial was about investment fraud and not medical malpractice. They understood that securing a conviction is a lot harder when people see the victims as people who had it coming in the first place.
    
    Charges for fraud are appealing from a potential prosecution angle since it's about money, which creates a paper trail to present in court. The problem, which the Jan. 6 committee members seem aware of, is that "Trump steals from people who deserve it" isn't the most politically scintillating pitch. That's likely why they're focusing on outrages like Kimberly Guilfoyle getting $60,000 to speak for two minutes at the Jan. 6 rally/riot incitement.
    
    The people Trump pumped for cash aren't exactly innocent, but it's important to remember he and his buddies are even worse.
    
    The main thing is keeping an eye on the prize: Saving democracy from Trump's continuing machinations. Voting rights can't get past the filibuster and voter enthusiasm for Democrats is going to be hard to drum up in the current economic situation. So it's increasingly clear that the most viable path — perhaps the only path — to preventing another coup is for the Justice Department to start imposing legal consequences on Trump and his allies. If fraud prosecutions are the way to make that happen, then so be it. We don't need to pity Trump's marks in order to believe he should still see the inside of a jail cell for defrauding them.
15. 2022-06-14 at 7:10 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK
    
    Not so funny when the tables are turned, bitch?
    
    It's not my fault nobody would fuck you to make a kid.
16. 2022-06-14 at 4:29 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    Continued...
    
    
    LANNY IS STILL A CUCK AND TRUMP IS STILL "ORANGE MAN BAD"
    
    
    Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, told Trump that Clark’s proposed letter was “a murder-suicide pact,” according to Donoghue’s deposition. “It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don’t ever want to see that letter again.” Cipollone declined to comment.
    
    Trump made his decision and turned to Clark.
    
    “I appreciate your willingness to do it,” Trump said, according to Donoghue. “I appreciate you being willing to suffer the abuse. But the reality is, you’re not going to get anything done. These guys are going to quit. Everyone else is going to resign. It’s going to be a disaster. The bureaucracy will eat you alive. And no matter how much you want to get things done in the next few weeks, you won’t be able to get it done, and it’s not going to be worth the breakage.”
    
    Clark had yet another idea. He asked whether Engel could provide a formal opinion about what authority Vice President Mike Pence had “when it comes to opening the votes” of the electoral college result on Jan. 6, according to an excerpt of Engel’s deposition in a recent court filing.
    
    “That’s an absurd idea,” Engel said he responded, asserting it wasn’t the job of the Justice Department and noting only three days remained before Pence would perform his role. Trump interjected that he didn’t want anyone attending the meeting to talk to Pence about what to do on Jan. 6.
    
    “Nobody should be talking to the vice president here,” Trump said, according to Engel. Instead, Trump would soon do that himself in an attempt to convince the vice president not to certify Biden’s election.
    
    As the Justice Department officials filed out of the White House that night, one grave threat to American democracy had passed.
    
    Three days later, after the president falsely said at a rally that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide,” a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol.
17. 2022-06-14 at 4:25 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS LUCKY FRALA HAS NO KIDS BECAUSE THEN HE'D HAVE TO GROW UP AND BE A MAN
    
    PRESIDENTIAL COUP PLOTTING
    
    
    The Washington Post
    Inside the explosive Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6
    Michael Kranish
    
    
    Three days before Congress was slated to certify the 2020 presidential election, a little-known Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark rushed to meet President Donald Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a last-ditch attempt to reverse the results.
    
    Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade, had outlined a plan in a letter he wanted to send to the leaders of key states Joe Biden won. It said that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” about the vote and that the states should consider sending “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump” for Congress to approve.
    
    In fact, Clark’s bosses had warned there was not evidence to overturn the election and had rejected his letter days earlier. Now they learned Clark was about to meet with Trump. Acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen tracked down his deputy, Richard Donoghue, who had been walking on the Mall in muddy jeans and an Army T-shirt. There was no time to change. They raced to the Oval Office.
    
    As Rosen and Donoghue listened, Clark told Trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general.
    
    “History is calling,” Clark told the president, according to a deposition from Donoghue excerpted in a recent court filing. “This is our opportunity. We can get this done.”
    
    Donoghue urged Trump not to put Clark in charge, calling him “not competent” and warning of “mass resignations” by Justice Department officials if he became the nation’s top law enforcement official, according to Donoghue’s account.
    
    “What happens if, within 48 hours, we have hundreds of resignations from your Justice Department because of your actions?” Donoghue said he asked Trump. “What does that say about your leadership?”
    
    Clark’s letter and his Oval Office meeting set off one of the tensest chapters during Trump’s effort to overturn the election, which culminated three days later with rioters storming the U.S. Capitol. His plan could have decapitated the Justice Department leadership and could have overturned the election.
    
    Clark’s actions have been the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation and an ongoing probe by the Justice Department’s inspector general, and now are expected to be closely examined during June hearings by the House committee investigating the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021.
    
    After the New York Times reported in January 2021 about Clark’s actions, he said he engaged in a “candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president,” denied that he had a plan to oust Rosen, and criticized others in the meeting for talking publicly and “distorting” the discussion.
    
    Now, however, key witnesses have provided Congress with a fuller account of Clark’s actions, including new details about the confrontation that took place in the Jan. 3 Oval Office meeting, which lasted nearly three hours.
    
    A reconstruction of the events by The Washington Post, based on the court filings, depositions, Senate and House reports, previously undisclosed emails, and interviews with knowledgeable government officials, shows how close the country came to crisis three days before the insurrection.
    
    The evidence, which fills in crucial details about Clark’s efforts, includes an email showing he was sent a draft of a letter outlining a plan to try to overturn the election by a just-arrived Justice Department official who had once written a book claiming President Barack Obama planned to “subvert the Constitution.”
    
    But larger mysteries could still be solved at an upcoming Jan. 6 committee hearing slated to examine Clark’s actions, including the crucial question of whether Clark and his allies were acting on their own initiative — or whether they were one piece of a larger, well-planned effort to keep Trump in power. That question gets to the heart of the committee’s professed mission: proving there was a “coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”
    
    Clark, 55, and his lawyer, Harry MacDougald, declined to comment.
    
    The House committee unanimously voted to hold Clark in contempt of Congress after he declined in December to answer most questions on grounds that his interactions with Trump were privileged. But Clark later appeared before the committee and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, CNN reported; his testimony from that appearance has not been released.
    
    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who participated in the Judiciary Committee’s investigation, said investigators should key in on whether Clark was working on behalf of others not yet identified.
    
    “It certainly could be a symptom of a much larger and more coherent plan than has currently been disclosed,” Whitehouse said. Clark “does not appear to have elections expertise or experience, which raises the question, did he really sit down at his computer and type it out or does somebody produce it for him?”
    
    Clark, who attended Harvard and got his law degree from Georgetown, built a career focused on environmental law at the Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis and served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
    
    Clark arrived at Trump’s Justice Department in 2018 to head an office that enforces environmental laws and regulations, and then in September 2020 became acting head of the department’s civil division.
    
    When Attorney General William P. Barr resigned as of Dec. 23 after declaring that the Justice Department had not found evidence of mass fraud in Trump’s election loss, Rosen became the acting attorney general. Trump, though, complained to Rosen that the Justice Department still wasn’t adequately investigating his claims of massive fraud. (A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.)
    
    Clark would soon emerge as someone interested in pursuing Trump’s claims. He found a key ally in Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), one of the earliest proponents of Trump’s voter fraud claims. Perry later told radio station WITF that he had worked with Clark on “various legislative matters” over the previous four years. When Perry called Donoghue in late December to complain that the Justice Department hadn’t sufficiently investigated the election, he mentioned Clark as someone “who could really get in there and do something about this,” according to the Senate Judiciary Committee majority report.
    
    Shortly before Christmas, Clark and Perry met, according to the Senate report. Perry told WITF that “when President Trump asked if I would make an introduction, I obliged.” A Perry spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
    
    Clark then met with Trump in the Oval Office, according to the Senate report. When Rosen found out Clark had talked privately with Trump, he was livid, telling Clark in a Dec. 26 phone call that, “You didn’t tell me about it in advance. You didn’t get authorization. You didn’t tell me about it after the fact. This can’t happen,” according to Rosen’s interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    
    Clark was “somewhat apologetic” and promised he wouldn’t do it again without permission, according to Rosen. But Clark had already made an impression on the president. The next day, Trump told Rosen in a phone call that “people are very mad with the Justice Department” not investigating voter fraud and referred to having met with Clark.
    
    Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    
    “I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.”
    
    Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”
    
    A top Clark associate, meanwhile, prepared to send him a draft of the letter to state legislatures.
    
    Kenneth Klukowski had arrived at the Justice Department just two weeks before the Oval Office meeting to become legal counsel to the civil division overseen by Clark.
    
    He had long been an outspoken figure on the right, working as senior legal analyst for the conservative Breitbart website and co-writing a 2010 book about President Barack Obama titled “The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.” Before joining Clark’s team, he’d served as special counsel to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, according to his Facebook page.
    
    At 4:20 p.m. on Dec. 28, 2020, he sent an email that has been a central mystery in the Clark episode. The email to Clark, obtained by The Post, has the subject line, “email to you,” and an attachment titled “Draft Letter JBC 12 28 20.docx.” The email text simply said “Attached.” The attached letter, which has been previously released, was titled “Pre-Decisional & Deliberative/Attorney-Client or Legal Work Product – Georgia Proof of Concept.”
    
    The House committee has sought to determine if Klukowski wrote the letter and whether he did so alone. Klukowski is cooperating with the committee, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a closed-door session.
    
    In an April court filing, a committee lawyer said there is evidence suggesting the letter “may have been drafted by Ken Klukowski.” Whitehouse said he wants to know if someone produced the letter for Klukowski. Klukowski and his lawyer, Edward Greim, declined to comment.
    
    Twenty minutes after Klukowski sent the document, Clark sent Rosen and Donoghue an email with the subject line “Two Urgent Action Items.” One was an attachment of the letter that Klukowski had just sent to him. At the bottom of the letter was a place for it to be signed by Rosen, Donoghue and Clark.
    
    “I set it up for signature by the three of us,” Clark wrote. “I think we should get it out as soon as possible.”
    
    The second item was Clark’s request for an intelligence briefing about an allegation that the Chinese were controlling U.S.-based voting machines via internet-connected smart thermostats, a theory that the Justice Department had dismissed as not credible.
    
    Donoghue said in his deposition that he found Clark’s proposed letter to state leaders and request for the intelligence briefing to be “very strange” and “completely inconsistent with the department’s role ...[and] with what our investigations to date, had revealed.”
    
    “There’s no chance I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this,” Donoghue emailed Clark on the afternoon of Dec. 28, 2020. He stressed that the Justice Department investigations into possible fraud were so small that they “would simply not impact the outcome of the election.” Donoghue told Clark that asking the states to reconsider their certified election results “would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political, and social ramifications for the country.”
    
    Rosen summoned Clark to a meeting along with Donoghue. Clark explained that he been looking at allegations on his own and had concerns about the reliability of the election, according to Donoghue’s deposition. “He mentioned this smart thermostat thing,” Donoghue said, surmising that Clark had read information in lawsuits and “various theories that seemed to be derived from the Internet.”
    
    Donoghue told Clark in the meeting that the proposed letter was “wildly inappropriate and irresponsible … nothing less than the department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election,” Donoghue told the Senate committee.
    
    Rosen was stunned. He had known Clark for years and once had worked with him at Kirkland & Ellis. Rosen told the Senate committee that he wondered “what’s going on with Jeff Clark. That this is inconsistent with how I perceived him in the past.” At several points, Clark asked that the word “acting” be removed from his title as head of the civil division, which Rosen said he declined.
    
    With the meeting concluded, Rosen and Donoghue thought Clark’s effort was over. Clark told them, “I think they are good ideas. You don’t like them. Okay. Then, I guess we won’t do it,” according to Rosen’s Senate committee interview.
    
    But Clark’s effort to woo Trump with his ideas was just beginning.
    
    President Donald Trump holds up copies of news articles during an appearance in the White House briefing room in July 2020.
    Several days later, Rosen learned that Clark had once again met with Trump — and once again without informing him in advance, Rosen told the Senate committee. Clark told Rosen that Trump wanted him to consider becoming attorney general. Rosen was livid. “He says he won’t do it again. He did it again,” Rosen recalled. But Rosen said he did not have the authority to fire Clark, as he would have liked to do, because Clark was a presidential appointee.
    
    Shortly after the clash between Clark and the senior Justice Department officials, Clark told Rosen that if he reversed his position and signed the letter to the Georgia legislature, then Rosen could remain attorney general, Rosen told the Senate committee. Rosen refused. Donoghue told Clark that “you went behind your boss’s back, and you’re proposing things that are outside your domain and you don’t know what you’re talking about,” Rosen told the Senate committee.
    
    The following day, Jan. 3, 2021, Clark told Rosen that he had just talked with Trump and that “the president had decided to offer him the position, and he had decided to take it. So that I would be replaced that Sunday, and the department would chart a different path,” Rosen told the Senate committee.
    
    “I don’t get to be fired by someone who works for me,” Rosen said he told Clark. Rosen then called and asked to meet with Trump.
    
    Donoghue, meanwhile, had begun taking things off his office wall and packing boxes, presuming he would resign if it was true Clark was about to be named attorney general, Donoghue told the Senate committee.
    
    A meeting in the Oval Office was quickly arranged with Clark, Rosen, and other Justice Department and White House lawyers. Rosen found Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk, while other White House and Justice Department officials took their seats. Donoghue, still in his muddy jeans and T-shirt, remained outside. The Post had just broken the news that Trump had a day earlier pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find enough votes to win the state. Raffensperger had told Trump his allegations of fraud that could overturn the election were baseless.
    
    While Donoghue was watching television coverage about The Post’s report, a White House official emerged and said, “The president wants you in this meeting.”
    
    Around the time Donoghue entered, Clark was telling Trump that if he became attorney general he would “conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover widespread fraud,” Donoghue said in his House deposition. Clark vowed to send the letter he drafted to Georgia and other states and said that “this was a last opportunity to sort of set things straight with this defective election, and that he could do it, and he had the intelligence and the will and the desire to pursue these matters in the way that the president thought most appropriate.”
    
    Everyone else in the room told Trump they opposed Clark, Donoghue said.
    
    Trump repeatedly went after Rosen and Donoghue, saying they hadn’t pursued voter fraud allegations.
    
    “You two,” Trump said, pointing to the two top Justice Department officials. “You two haven’t done anything. You two don’t care. You haven’t taken appropriate actions. Everyone tells me I should fire you.”
    
    Trump continually circled back to the idea of replacing Rosen with Clark.
    
    “What do I have to lose?” the president asked, according to Donoghue.
    
    “Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose,” Donoghue said he responded. “Is this really how you want your administration to end? You’re going to hurt the country, you’re going to hurt the department, you’re going to hurt yourself, with people grasping at straws on these desperate theories about election fraud, and is this really in anyone’s best interest?”
    
    Donoghue warned Trump that putting Clark in charge would be likely to lead to mass resignations at the Justice Department.
    
    “Well, suppose I do this,” Trump said to Donoghue. “Suppose I replace [Rosen] with [Clark], what would you do?”
    
    “Sir, I would resign immediately,” Donoghue said he responded. “There’s no way I’m serving under this guy [Clark].”
    
    Trump then turned to Steve Engel, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, whom Trump reportedly had considered for a seat on the Supreme Court.
    
    “Steve, you wouldn’t resign, would you?” Trump asked.
    
    “Absolutely I would, Mr. President. You’d leave me no choice,” Engel responded, according to Donoghue’s account. Engel declined to comment.
    
    “And we’re not the only ones,” Donoghue said he told Trump. “You should understand that your entire department leadership will resign. Every [assistant attorney general] will resign. ... Mr. President, these aren’t bureaucratic leftovers from another administration. You picked them. This is your leadership team. You sent every one of them to the Senate; you got them confirmed. What is that going to say about you, when we all walk out at the same time?”
    
    Donoghue then told Trump that Clark had no qualification to be attorney general: “He’s never been a criminal attorney. He’s never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He’s never been in front of a grand jury, much less a trial jury.”
    
    Clark objected.
    
    “Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,” Clark said, according to Donoghue’s deposition.
    
    “That’s right,” Donoghue said he responded. “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.”
18. 2022-06-14 at 6:17 AM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY ALLOWS FRALA TO WEAR THE PANTS AND PEG HIS ASS.
19. 2022-06-13 at 6:15 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CHILD WHO GIGGLES WHEN HE HEARS "POOPY" OR "PEE-PEE"
    
    SKUNK NEEDS TO PAINT ANOTHER HOUSE SO HE CAN SEND MORE MONEY TO TRUMP'S "STOP THE STEAL" FUND
    
    
    Trump pushed fraud claims publicly after his staff dismissed claims
    Ella Lee, Bart Jansen, Rebecca Morin, Dylan Wells, Chelsey Cox, Erin Mansfield, Joey Garrison and Katherine Swartz, USA TODAY
    
    
    WASHINGTON – Following Thursday's prime-time introduction to the Jan. 6 committee investigating the Capitol attack's findings, the second of eight hearings will dig into the details of former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
    
    A hopeless challenge: Trump campaign officials say they told Trump that challenging the 2020 election results based on theories about election fraud almost certainly would be unsuccessful.
    
    Who was Trump listening to? Testimony from campaign insiders suggested Trump listened to Rudy Giuliani, who witnesses said was drunk, about how to react to the election results instead of advisers who told him he lost.
    
    Advisers caution against declaring victory: Some of Trump’s top campaign advisers told the committee during depositions that they discouraged the president from declaring victory prematurely on election night 2020.
    Debunked PA, GA claims of voter fraud: A panel of witnesses during the committee’s second session debunked conspiracy theories about a “suitcase” full of ballots in Georgia and claims that thousands of dead voters cast ballots in Pennsylvania.
    
    Committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, adjourned today’s January 6 hearing after giving a glimpse of what is to come in future hearings, showing a video of January 6 protestors. “We know they were there because of Donald Trump,” said Thompson.
    
    “I know exactly what’s going on right now, fake election. They think they’re gonna f—ing cheat us out of our vote?” said one protestor. Another protestor referred to the Dominion voting machine conspiracy theories often espoused by Trump, saying they “can’t really trust the software.”
    
    
    SKUNK-PAY ATTENTION HERE!
    
    Lofgren says Trump campaign ‘misled’ donors on where funds were going
    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., in a closing statement said the Trump campaign “misled” campaign donors that their funds would be used for election fraud claims.
    
    Lofgren said that Trump and his campaign used voter fraud claims to “raise millions of dollars” from Americans.
    
    “Those donors deserve the truth about what those funds will be used for,” Lofgren said. “Throughout the committee's investigation, we found evidence that the campaign and its surrogates misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used.”
    
    - Rebecca Morin
    
    Election lawyer: Trump campaign did not make its case’
    Benjamin Ginsberg, who has represented Republican presidential candidates in three elections (200,2004, 2012), said former President Donald Trump filed dozens of legal challenges for alleged voter fraud, but none were substantiated.
    
    In 2000, the victory margin in the key state of Florida in favor of George W. Bush was 537 votes. In 2020, the closest margin was more than 10,000 votes in Arizona and Trump would have needed several states to change their results. “You just don’t make up those sorts of numbers in recounts.
    
    Trump’s campaign lost 61 cases challenging the election in state and federal courts.
    
    “The simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case,” Ginberg said.
    
    - Bart Jansen
    
    
    Former GOP Philadelphia city commissioner says they found no evidence of fraud
    Testifying to the January 6 committee, Al Schmidt, a former city commissioner from Philadelphia, says after investigation, he found no claims of voter fraud in the City of Brotherly Love.
    
    Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren from California questioned Schmidt, specifically asking about a claim from Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani “that 8,000 dead people voted in Pennsylvania.”
    
    “Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania, there wasn’t even evidence of eight,” replied Schmidt. “We took seriously every case that was referred to us, but no matter how fantastical, no matter how absurd, we took every one of those seriously, including these.”
    
    - Kenneth Tran
    
    
    Georgia officials: Trump's claims about voter fraud in the Peach State are false
    The committee returned from recess to hear video testimony by a former official from Georgia about how Trump's claims of voter fraud in that state were simply false.
    
    Former U.S. Attorney Byung “BJay” Pak broke down one such claim: "We found that the suitcase full of ballots, the alleged black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under the table, was actually an official lock box where ballots were kept safe."
    
    Trump's pressure on Georgia officials to "find" votes from these kinds of false claims are the subject of a grand jury investigation in Atlanta.
    
    - David Jackson
    
    
    Committee took short recess after first half of hearing dominated by one theme: Trump ‘knew’ he lost and lied about claims
    The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack of the U.S. Capitol took a recess shortly after noon ET after a first half of testimony that focused on how Trump knew he lost the 2020 election but ignored the advice of his top aides who shot down the president's claims of election fraud.
    
    The hearing leaned heavily on videotaped testimony of former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and former Attorney General Barr. The latter said he determined Trump was “detached from reality” because of some of his fantastical election fraud claims and that were "completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation."
    
    The first half of the hearing also detailed how Trump was aware that mail ballots cast late on election night would heavily favor Joe Biden but that Trump falsely claimed victory anyway.
    
    - Joey Garrison
    
    
    Trump aides report no widespread election fraud
    Several aides to former President Donald Trump told the House Jan. 6 committee he was told repeatedly allegations of election fraud weren’t substantiated through investigations.
    
    Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Trump was told he received bad information that wasn’t correct. Derek Lyons, a former assistant to the president, said no allegations were substantiated for litigation. Alex Cannon, a former Trump campaign lawyer, said trade adviser Peter Navarro accused him of being a member of the 'Deep State' for dismissing technology concerns in Georgia based on a hand recount of ballots.
    
    “In our point of view, it was debunked,” Rosen said of election fraud.
    
    - Bart Jansen
    
    
    Former deputy attorney general said he told Trump many of the voter fraud theories were ‘false’
    Richard Donoghue, former deputy attorney general, said he told Trump “much of the info you're getting is false” when the former president asked about voter fraud theories.
    
    Donoghue said he told Trump that many of the theories were not supported by evidence gathered. He noted that while Trump would accept that one allegation was false, he would move on to another conspiracy theory.
    
    There were so many of these allegations, that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn't fight us on it, but he would move to another allegation,” Donoghue said.
    
    - Rebecca Morin
    
    
    Barr expected to get fired for saying election was legitimate
    Then-President Donald Trump summoned his attorney general Bill Barr up to his office after Barr told a news reporter there was no amount of fraud in the 2020 election that would have changed the outcome.
    
    “The president was as mad as I’d ever seen him and he was trying to control himself,” Barr, who had told his secretary she may have to pack up if he gets fired, told the House committee investigating Jan. 6. “The president said, ‘Well this is killing me. You didn’t have to say this. You must have said this because you hate Trump. You hate Trump.’”
    
    Then the president went into a conspiracy theory about votes in Detroit, at which point Barr debunked his theory and pointed out that Trump did better in Detroit in 2020 than in 2016.
    
    “I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was bull—,” Barr said. “He was indignant about that.”
    
    - Erin Mansfield
    
    
    Former AG Barr: “If he really believes this stuff, he’s become detached from reality.”
    Former Attorney General Bill Barr told the January 6 committee that Trump was convinced of a conspiracy theory that voter fraud was conducted through Dominion voting machines. If Trump truly believed the theory, Barr said “he’s become detached from reality.”
    
    Trump “went off on a monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud through the Dominion machines," he said.
    
    Trump also told Barr that the Dominion report was “absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged. The report means I am going to have a second term.” Looking through the report, Barr said “it looked very amateurish to me” and he “didn’t see any real qualifications.”
    
    “I was somewhat demoralized, because I thought, boy if he really believes this stuff, he’s become detached from reality, if he really believes this stuff," Barr said.
    
    - Kenneth Tran
    
    
    More BS: Panel reprises Bill Barr's use of barnyard epithet to describe Trump's claims of voter fraud
    The committee replayed then-Attorney General Bill Barr's pungent description of Trump's false claims of voter fraud.
    
    "The stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was bull----, that the claims of fraud were bull---- and he was indignant about that," Barr said in video testimony.
    
    Barr used the same term in his book and the committee played a clip of him on Thursday night using the traditional barnyard epithet.
    
    - David Jackson
    
    
    Meadows and Kushner told Barr they thought Trump would end talk of stolen election
    Former Attorney General William Barr recounted a conversation in the days after the election that he had with Jared Kushner and Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who were both convinced that Trump was ready to tamp down his wild claims of a stolen election.
    
    “Look, I think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit to how far he can take this,” Meadows told Barr, according to videotaped testimony from Barr.
    
    Kushner told Barr: “Yeah, we’re working on this.”
    
    - Joey Garrison
    
    
    'Very bleak:" Witnesses say it was obvious from Election Night that Trump had lost
    A slew of witnesses are backing the committee's claim that Trump protested the 2020 election even though he was shown plenty of data that he had in fact lost – one of them being Trump's own campaign manager.
    
    In his videotaped testimony, Stepien said that Trump's chances of victory were "very, very, very bleak" in the hours after Election Day ended – and that Trump knew it.
    
    Yet Trump persisted in claiming election fraud, a campaign that ended with the Jan. 6 insurrection, committee members said – his self-knowledge is a key legal point should the former president be prosecuted for inciting a riot.
    
    - David Jackson
    
    
    Former Fox News political editor says Trump tried to exploit ‘red mirage’
    Chris Stirewalt, a former Fox News political editor, said he felt it was necessary to be honest with viewers about the “red mirage,” which was showing Trump ahead of votes on election day, but began to drop behind as mail-in votes came in.
    
    Stirewalt explained that Republican candidates typically have a higher voter count from same day election votes, while Democrats typically vote early or by mail. He said “the Trump campaign and the President had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly.”
    
    “We wanted to keep telling viewers, ‘hey, look, the number that you see here is sort of irrelevant, because it's only a small percentage of these votes,’” Stirewalt said.
    
    - Rebecca Morin
20. 2022-06-13 at 5:52 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
    

    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    LANNY IS A CUCK!