Jan 6th Hearings

Post Reply New Topic

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has come to a “general agreement” to forward some criminal referrals to the Justice Department, its chair told reporters Tuesday.

It was a confusing morning at the Capitol, with Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) walking back statements he made earlier in the day when he told reporters “we will” be making criminal referrals.

“We’re not there yet,” Thompson said later, adding that the earlier “gaggle [with reporters] was wrong.”

The panel will meet later on Tuesday to discuss the issue, following a Friday presentation from a subcommittee of the committee’s four lawyers, who were tasked with tying up unfinished business, including how to address any recommendations to the Justice Department.

“The Committee has determined that referrals to outside entities should be considered as a final part of its work. The committee will make decisions about specifics in the days ahead,” a committee spokesperson said in a statement.

The chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told reporters they were still making progress on the topic, while Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of that panel, said a formal announcement on referrals could come as soon as this week.

“We’re nearing the end of our work,” she said.

Referrals to the Justice Department would hardly be surprising from a committee that has made clear it believes numerous crimes were committed in the effort to block the transfer of power that culminated in the lawless attack on the Capitol.
The committee also previously made four referrals for those it argued defied its congressional subpoenas.
But the breadth of the referrals — as well as the specific crimes they list — could be illuminating, particularly as the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation appears to be accelerating.

It remains unclear who would be included or how large a group that could be.

Thompson also said the committee was still weighing whether to make referrals to those who perjured themselves before the panel’s investigators. During their hearings, they also warned that some individuals appeared to be engaging in witness intimidation, another potential crime.

Another outstanding issue for the panel is how to deal with five GOP lawmakers who flouted committee subpoenas, a list that includes House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.).

:heart:

Called it. The USA isn't going to let former guy just do a coup. US feds will come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who tries to pull that s**t - donnie trumplestitltskin included.

Elections matter

That's why people of sound mind were so horrified in 2016.

I don’t think convictions would make a difference in that regard.


That includes some of us without sound minds

The Jan. 6 select committee is preparing to vote on urging the Justice Department to pursue at least three criminal charges against former President Donald Trump, including insurrection.

The report that the select panel is expected to consider on Monday afternoon, described to POLITICO by two people familiar with its contents, reflects some recommendations from a subcommittee that evaluated potential criminal referrals. Among the charges that subcommittee proposes for Trump: 18 U.S.C. 2383, insurrection; 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), obstruction of an official proceeding; and 18 U.S.C. 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

It’s unclear whether the select committee’s final report will recommend additional charges for Trump beyond the three described to POLITICO, or whether it will urge other criminal charges for other players in Trump’s bid to subvert his 2020 loss. The document, according to the people familiar, includes an extensive justification for the recommended charges.
To justify incitement of insurrection, the report references U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s February ruling saying Trump’s language plausibly incited violence on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters besieged the Capitol in a bid to disrupt congressional certification of his loss to Joe Biden. The report also cites the Senate’s 57 votes in last year’s impeachment trial, Trump’s second, to convict him on an “incitement of insurrection” charge passed by the House.

The select panel’s report also notes that, in order to violate the insurrection statute, Trump did not need an express agreement with rioters — but rather, simply needed to provide “aid or comfort” to them.

DOJ, which is already pursuing a criminal probe of Trump’s Jan. 6-related actions, is not required to consider referrals from Congress, which have no legal weight. However, the select committee plans to act in the hopes that lawmakers’ input can influence prosecutorial decision-making. Panel chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has also raised the possibility of referrals to outside entities like bar associations for the constellation of lawyers involved in election subversion efforts.

The House select committee on Jan. 6 delivered its final big public moment on Monday, with a meeting outlining its conclusions and recapping some of its most important revelations. 

The panel accused Trump of four crimes 
They are: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and inciting, assisting or giving comfort to an insurrection. 

The referrals were laid out from the dais by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.). 

Referring to the fourth charge, pertaining to insurrection, Raskin said: “It is a grave federal offense, anchored in the Constitution itself, which … uses participation in insurrection by office holders as automatic grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office again, at the federal or state level.” 

The implication for Trump, already a declared candidate for the presidency in 2024, could hardly be clearer. 

It bears emphasizing that criminal referrals carry no legal force and do not obligate Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Trump on any such charges.  

Furthermore, the Justice Department has already been conducting its own investigation — an effort that is now helmed by special counsel Jack Smith. 

Still, Monday marks the first time in American history that a congressional panel has criminally referred a former president. That, in itself, ups the momentum behind the idea of criminal charges against Trump. 

The panel, mindful of the drama of the moment, left the approval of the referrals to the final minutes of its hearing. 

Those referrals were unanimously approved, with each member separately announcing her or his assent.  

The committee adjourned immediately afterward.

The panel has Kevin McCarthy and three other GOP House members in its sights 
The panel’s decision to refer Trump for possible prosecution was not, in the end, a big surprise. Sources close to the committee had telegraphed such a move beforehand. 

More startling was a separate but related decision to ask the House Ethics Committee to investigate four Republican members of Congress. 

The members in the committee’s sights include Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the current House minority leader who aims to become Speaker when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3.  

The other members are Trump uber-loyalists: Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.). 

At issue was the refusal of these members to cooperate with the committee even when subpoenaed to do so. 

A lengthy document sent by the committee to the media included the accusation that the quartet had shown “willful noncompliance” that the panel contended “violates multiple standards of conduct and subjects them to discipline.” 

Ultimately, however, serious action from the Ethics Committee seems unlikely. The committee’s membership is always divided evenly between the two major parties. But its chair comes from the party that holds the House majority.

Current Chair Susan Wild (D-Pa.) will therefore give up her gavel come January. It seems highly implausible that a GOP-led panel will investigate four Republicans, including the man who will more likely than not be Speaker by then.

A reminder of the panel’s most dramatic moments 
The hearing had another purpose beyond referrals. It acted as a platform to sum up the panel’s work and refresh the public’s memory of its earlier “greatest hits.” 

Monday’s meeting was relatively brief — under 100 minutes in total — but offered an array of video clips from earlier hearings. 

A surprise Hope Hicks cameo — with new evidence 
Monday’s meeting had one important new element — video testimony from Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director and longtime Trump confidant. 

The footage from Hicks provided two compelling moments. 

One came when she mentioned she had become concerned about damage to Trump’s legacy, apparently amid his false claims of election fraud. 

But, she testified, in response Trump said “something along the lines of, ‘Nobody will care about my legacy if I lose. So that won’t matter. The only thing that matters is winning.’” 

In a separate clip, Hicks said that she had told White House lawyer Eric Herschmann in advance of Jan. 6 that she believed it was “important that the president put out some kind of message in advance” encouraging protesters to be peaceful. 

She said that Herschmann replied that he had delivered a similar message to Trump — “and that he had refused.” 

But what’s the bottom line? 
Several committee members have emphasized that they believe themselves to be working in part for history’s sake.  

Providing the fullest possible record of the events around Jan. 6, they suggested, was more important than any partisan political gain.

The evidence of immediate political impact is indeed scarce. 

Trump’s poll ratings moved only very slightly during the earlier, more dramatic hearings — and there is no reason to suppose they will shift more dramatically now.  

Cheney was defeated in a primary landslide by a pro-Trump challenger. Kinzinger opted to retire from Congress. It’s possible to argue the panel’s work fed into voters’ concerns about GOP extremism in the midterm elections, but the line of causation seems shaky at best. 

Trump, predictably, has blasted back at the panel. He referred to its members as “Thugs and Scoundrels” in a Sunday post on Truth Social and called on “Republicans and Patriots all over the land” to oppose them. 

But even if the politics don’t change, the panel’s work has clearly added to the historical record. 

Given the referrals, the story is not over yet. 

J6 committee is officially sharing everything with Jack Smith & the DOJ.

Seems Mark Meadows and what’s his lawyer face Eastman are among those in deep doodoo.

Former prosecutor Kershner (sp?) says DOJ won’t necessarily accelerate anything & hopes they don’t get slowed down too much having to review 1,000+ interviews for evidence that could prove anyones innocence. (A legal requirement. Makes sense.) Says Jack/DOJ will push forward with whatever they’re already doing, might be able to use some info to assist, but will always act independently vs simply do as criminal referrals recommend - although - he expects they will file those exact charges, not because J6 committee recommended them, but because that’s what the evidence suggests ought to happen anyways.

He’s also expecting Jack to lay the smack down over trump’s threats to him and additional attempts at obstruction etc etc based on trumps social media. Pretty much live when that crap hit the internet every commentator was like “Oooooh, Jack’s gonna make note of this and use it against trump later.. like wtf? Why is he continuing his blatant public criming??”



Very interesting to hear crickets from the “trump is just being trump,” crowd that believes insurrectionists were just tourists taking selfies and trump hasn’t done anything wrong. Meanwhile, I called it nearly 2 years ago right after this poop got the fan: There is Zero Chance the US gov’t allows a criminal ex president to just attempt a coup and just lets it slide because him and his goons are incompetent and their plans failed. Zero chance. They’re gonna mail him to the wall - not jus to punish him and prevent him from doing it again; but to deter any other future criminal minded potus from attempting to install themselves as dictator.

Now, whether he does jail time or not I dunno.. but I do still love the prediction of some former CIA or Secret Service guy I saw in an interview clip 4+ years ago that predicted about trump: “He will die in jail.” Seems back then sometime around 2017ish that guy had a pretty good grasp on trump’s level of criminality And the fact that the US DOJ/courts wasn’t going to put up with his BS.

The House January 6 committee is withdrawing its subpoena of former President Donald Trump as it concludes its work.

“In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, wrote in a letter to Trump’s attorney Wednesday obtained by CNN.

“Therefore, through this letter, I hereby formally withdraw the subpoena issued to former President Trump, and notify you that he is no longer obligated to comply or produce records in response to said subpoena,” Thompson added.

The committee subpoenaed Trump in October for documents and testimony related to its investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Trump responded by suing the committee to block the subpoena.

The committee had already dropped a number of subpoenas related to other witnesses as it winds down its work. Still, Trump seized on the subpoena withdrawal on his social media platform, claiming: “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court.”