Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Sun May 08, 2022 4:16 am

GOP Plans To ‘Take The Next Election Regardless Of Who Wins’ Harvard Constitutional Scholar Says
by Joy Reid
Apr 29, 2022




Republicans are planning to steal the 2024 presidential election a conservative judge has warned. Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe joins Joy Reid on what, "is being bandied about as the technique that they hope to use if they get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito and Thomas on board... to take the next election regardless of who wins."

0:00
"THE REIDOUT" WITH JOY REID IS
0:01
UP NEXT.
0:05
>>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
0:06
WE BEGIN "THE REIDOUT" WITH WHAT
0:09
SURE LOOKS LIKE A GROWING CIVIL
0:12
WAR INSIDE THE SAME POLITICAL
0:13
PARTY THAT IS DOING MORE THAN
0:15
JUST A LITTLE FLIRTING WITH
0:17
INSURRECTION.
0:17
WE ARE AWAITING NEWS FROM THE
0:18
JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE THAT IS
0:20
INVESTIGATING ROUND ONE OF THAT
0:22
ATTEMPT TO REPLACE AMERICAN
0:24
DEMOCRACY WITH SOMETHING MORE
0:26
AUTHORITARIAN.
0:26
THE COMMITTEE IS EXPECTED TO
0:27
ISSUE LETTERS TO AT LEAST THREE
0:29
REPUBLICANS ASKING THEM TO
0:31
TESTIFY.
0:31
THE COMMITTEE IS ALSO MOVING
0:32
FORWARD WITH PLANS TO HOLD ITS
0:34
FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGS IN JUNE.
0:36
BUT THE LAST FEW WEEKS HAVE
0:38
BEEN -- THEY HAVE BEEN FULL OF
0:40
SIGNS OF SOMETHING -- SOMETHING
0:42
ODD HAPPENING INSIDE WHAT HAD
0:44
FELT LIKE AN ENTIRELY UNIFIED
0:47
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
0:48
UNITED PARTICULARLY AROUND
0:49
DONALD TRUMP AND AROUND FIXING
0:51
WHAT WENT WRONG IN ROUND ONE OF
0:52
THE ATTEMPTED COUP.
0:54
THERE ARE THE LEAKS, LEAKS AND
0:55
MORE LEAKS OF KEVIN McCARTHY
0:57
SAYING ONE THING AND DOING
0:59
ANOTHER, WHICH SEEMED TO BE
0:59
COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE
1:00
WITH A LOT OF FINGER POINTING
1:02
OVER PRECISELY WHO THE SOURCE OR
1:06
SOURCES MIGHT BE.
1:07
BUT IT ALSO SEEMS LIKE
1:08
REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO CULL
1:10
AT LEAST OIN SUR REKZIST FROM
1:12
THE HERD, AND THAT WOULD BE
1:13
MADISON CAWTHORN, THE FRESHMAN
1:16
CONGRESSMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
1:17
YOU WILL RECALL THAT HE SAID
1:18
THIS ON JANUARY 6th.
1:20
>> THE DEMOCRATS WITH ALL THE
1:23
FRAUD THEY HAVE DONE IN THIS
1:25
ELECTION, THE REPUBLICANS HIDING
1:27
AND NOT FIGHTING, THEY ARE
1:29
TRYING TO SILENCE YOUR VOICE.
1:32
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THEY
1:34
DO NOT WANTING YOU TO BE HEARD.
1:36
>> SO THAT LIE AND THE
1:40
EXHORTATION TO FIGHT ARE NOT WHY
1:42
CAWTHORN SEEMS TO BE A TARGET
1:43
RIGHT NOW.
1:45
I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE
1:47
LATEST REVELATION BECAUSE IT'S
1:48
JUST TOO WEIRD, NOR HAVE ANY OF
1:51
THE YOUNGEST MEMBER OF CONGRESS'
1:53
OTHER ANTICS CAUSED THE
1:57
REPUBLICAN IRE.
1:58
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN COLLEGE,
2:01
CALLING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE
2:02
A THUG, ALL FINE AND ALL GOOD
2:04
WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
2:05
IT WASN'T UNTIL YOUNG MADISON
2:07
STARTED FLINGING AROUND
2:08
ACCUSATIONS OF COLLEAGUES
2:10
INVITING HIM TO ORGIES AND
2:11
OFFERING HIM COCAINE.
2:13
SORRY, I KNOW THIS IS A FAMILY
2:15
HOUR, BUT IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT
2:17
HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS AND
2:19
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP SAID HOLD
2:20
UP, MADISON.
2:21
KEVIN McCARTHY GAVE HIM A
2:23
TALKING TO AND SAID THAT HE HAD
2:24
LOST HIS TRUST.
2:25
NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR RICHARD
2:26
BURR CALLED HIM AN EMBARRASSMENT
2:28
AT TIMES.
2:30
THE OTHER NORTH CAROLINA
2:30
SENATOR, THOM TILLIS, SAID I
2:33
WANT A DELEGATION THAT WORKS
2:34
TOGETHER.
2:34
I DON'T WANT A DELEGATION THAT
2:36
GETS TOGETHER MINUS ONE AND
2:38
TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT
2:39
THAT MEMBER IS CAUSING.
2:41
CLEARLY MEANING MADISON
2:44
CAWTHORN.
2:44
AND IT APPEARS THAT MADISON IS
2:46
NOW IN THE PROVERBIAL FINDING
2:49
OUT PHASE WITH LEAK AFTER LEAK
2:51
AFTER LEAK OF SALACIOUS
2:53
ALLEGATIONS AND REPEATED CALLS
2:54
FOR ETHICS INVESTIGATIONS.
2:57
IN OTHER WORDS, REPUBLICANS CAN
2:59
DISCIPLINE THEIR OWN WHEN THEY
3:02
WANT TO.
3:02
WHILE CIRCLING THE WAGONS AROUND
3:04
THE OTHER LOUDEST
3:06
INSURRECTIONIST, PAUL GOSAR,
3:10
MARGIE GREENE, LAUREN BOEBERT
3:12
AND OTHERS, IT IS VERY, VERY
3:15
WEIRD.
3:15
BUT REPUBLICANS DO SEEM TO AGREE
3:17
100% THAT THEY ARE ALL IN
3:18
GETTING IT RIGHT IF AND WHEN
3:20
THEY REPEAT THE COUP NEXT TIME.
3:22
THAT IS THE WARNING FROM RETIRED
3:24
CONSERVATIVE FEDERAL JUDGE
3:26
MICHAEL J.LUDDIG.
3:29
A PERENNIAL SUPREME COURT
3:31
SHORT-LISTER AND TED CRUZ'S
3:32
FORMER MENTOR.
3:33
HE ALSO ADVISED FORMER VICE
3:36
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AGAINST
3:37
OVERTURNING THE 2020 ELECTION.
3:39
AND NOW MICHAEL LUDDIG IS
3:41
SOUNDING THE ALARM ABOUT THE
3:43
REPUBLICAN BLUEPRINT TO STEAL
3:45
THE NEXT ELECTION.
3:46
HE WRITES THAT LIES ABOUT VOTER
3:48
FRAUD ARE THE SHINY OBJECT THAT
3:50
REPUBLICANS HAVE TAUNTINGLY AND
3:54
DISINGENUOUSLY DANGLED FOR
3:55
ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF TO
3:56
DISTRACT ATTENTION.
3:59
TRUMP'S AND THE REPUBLICANS' FAR
4:01
MORE AMBITIOUS OBJECTIVE IS TO
4:03
EXECUTE SUCCESSFULLY IN 2024 THE
4:05
SAME PLAN THEY FAILED IN
4:07
EXECUTING IN 2020 AND TO
4:09
OVERTURN THE 2024 ELECTION IF
4:11
TRUMP OR HIS ANOINTED SUCCESSOR
4:14
LOSES AGAIN IN THE NEXT
4:16
QUADRENNIAL CONTEST.
4:19
LUDDIG CALLS 2020 A DRY RUN FOR
4:22
THE NEXT ELECTION AND LAYS OUT
4:25
STEP-BY-STEP THEIR INTENTIONS.
4:26
AS IT STANDS TODAY TRUMP AND/OR
4:29
HIS ANOINTED SUCCESSOR, THE
4:30
REPUBLICANS ARE POISED IN THEIR
4:32
WORD TO STEAL FROM DEMOCRATS THE
4:34
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2024
4:35
THAT THEY FALSELY CLAIMED THE
4:37
DEMOCRATS STOLE FROM THEM IN
4:38
2020.
4:39
BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
4:40
BETWEEN THE FALSELY CLAIMED
4:41
STOLEN ELECTION OF 2020 AND WHAT
4:44
WOULD BE THE STOLEN ELECTION OF
4:46
2024.
4:47
UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATS' THEFT
4:49
CLAIMED BY REPUBLICANS, THE
4:51
REPUBLICANS' THEFT WOULD BE AN
4:53
OPEN DEFIANCE OF THE POPULAR
4:54
VOTE AND, THUS, THE WILL OF THE
4:56
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
4:58
POETIC, THOUGH TRAGIC IRONY FOR
5:00
AMERICA'S DEMOCRACY.
5:01
JOINING ME NOW IS LAWRENCE
5:04
TRIBE, THE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR
5:05
OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT HARVARD
5:07
LAW SCHOOL.
5:07
PROFESSOR TRIBE, IT'S ALWAYS
5:09
GOOD TO TALK WITH YOU.
5:12
AND HAD THIS COME FROM A LIBERAL
5:16
JURIST, SOMEBODY WHO ALIGNED
5:19
THEMSELVES IDEOLOGICALLY WITH
5:21
DEMOCRATS WOULD BE ONE THING.
5:22
BUT MICHAEL LUTTIG IS A
5:26
CONSERVATIVE'S CONSERVATIVE.
5:28
HE'S BEEN ON THE SHORT LIST
5:31
NOMINATIONS.
5:32
THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE.
5:33
ONE OF THE THINGS HE'S ARGUING
5:35
IS SCARY.
5:36
HERE'S POINT ONE.
5:36
THE CORNERSTONE OF THIS PLAN IS
5:40
TO HAVE -- WAS TO HAVE THE
5:41
SUPREME COURT EMBRACE THE
5:44
LITTLE-KNOWN INDEPENDENT STATE
5:45
LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE, WHICH IN
5:46
TURN WOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR
5:49
EXPLOITATION OF THE ELECTORAL
5:50
COLLEGE PROCESS AND ELECTORAL
5:51
COUNT ACT.
5:52
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS?
5:54
WHAT IS THE INDEPENDENT STATE
5:55
LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE AND HOW
5:57
MIGHT IT BE EXPLOITED?
5:59
>> BEFORE I GET TO THAT, LET ME
6:01
REITERATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID
6:03
ABOUT JUDGE LUTTIG.
6:04
HE IS A CONSERVATIVE'S
6:06
CONSERVATIVE.
6:07
HE SERVED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE ON
6:09
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOR 15 YEARS.
6:13
HE WAS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY
6:16
GEORGE W. BUSH TO BE CHIEF
6:17
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES,
6:18
AND IF NOT THAT, TO TAKE THE
6:20
SEAT THAT SAM ALITO TOOK.
6:23
SO HE IS AUTHENTICALLY A
6:26
CONSERVATIVE.
6:26
HE'S NOT A RADICAL.
6:28
HE'S NOT AN IDEOLOGUE, BUT HE'S
6:30
A PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE.
6:32
NOW, HE POINTS OUT IN HIS PIECE
6:34
THAT THERE IS THIS STRANGELY
6:39
NAMED INDEPENDENT STATE
6:40
LEGISLATURE DOCTRINE.
6:42
IT'S CLEVERLY NAMED BECAUSE IT
6:44
SOUNDS INNOCUOUS.
6:46
STATE LEGISLATURES ARE
6:48
INDEPENDENT.
6:48
BUT IT'S MADE UP.
6:49
THE DOCTRINE SUPPOSEDLY IS THAT
6:52
WHEN A STATE LEGISLATURE,
6:54
REGARDLESS OF THE STATE'S
6:57
CONSTITUTION, REGARDLESS OF
6:58
ANYTHING THAT THE STATE'S
6:59
HIGHEST COURT MIGHT SAY, WHEN
7:02
THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS RULES
7:04
LAID DOWN, EVEN IF THE RULES
7:06
SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WILL
7:07
DISREGARD THE POPULAR VOTE OR
7:09
WHOEVER WON IT, WE ARE SIMPLY
7:11
GOING TO COME IN AND NAME OUR
7:13
OWN SLATE, THAT THAT'S THE LAST
7:15
WORD.
7:16
IT REALLY WOULD GIVE THE STATE
7:18
LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE THE
7:21
AUTHORITY BASICALLY TO ERASE
7:25
DEMOCRACY, WIPE OUT A REPUBLICAN
7:26
FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND DO ITS
7:28
WILL.
7:29
NOW, STATE LEGISLATURES ARE
7:31
DEFINED BY THE STATE
7:33
CONSTITUTION GOING ALL THE WAY
7:34
BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
7:36
REPUBLIC, WHETHER YOU'RE AN
7:37
ORIGINALIST OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
7:41
IST.
7:42
YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
7:44
DOCTRINE, SO-CALLED DOCTRINE IS
7:46
JUST MADE FROM WHOLE CLOTH.
7:48
BUT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE
7:51
WEEDS, THE POINT IS THAT THIS
7:53
MADE-UP DOCTRINE, A BRAIN CHILD
7:55
OF JOHN EASTMAN, WHICH FINDS
7:59
SOME LANGUAGE IN A CONCURRING
8:03
OPINION BY THEN CHIEF JUSTICE
8:07
REHNQUIST IN BUSH VERSUS GORE
8:08
BUT IT WASN'T AN OPINION OF THE
8:10
COURT, THAT IS BEING BANDIED
8:14
ABOUT AS THE TECHNIQUE THAT THEY
8:16
HOPE TO USE IF THEY GET GORSUCH
8:19
AND KAVANAUGH AND ALITO AND
8:23
THOMAS ON BOARD THEY HOPE TO USE
8:27
TO TAKE THE NEXT ELECTION
8:28
REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS.
8:29
BUT THAT'S ONLY FOUR JUSTICES.
8:31
THEY NEED A FIFTH.
8:32
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO
8:33
HAVE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IN
8:36
THAT CAMP TO STEAL THE ELECTION.
8:38
THEY'RE COUNTING ON AMY CONEY
8:41
BARRETT.
8:41
THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REASON TO
8:43
THINK THAT SHE'S UNPRINCIPLED
8:45
ENOUGH TO BUY THAT IDEA.
8:48
SO YOU MIGHT THINK SO WHY WORRY?
8:51
BUT, YOU KNOW, NONE OF US CAN
8:53
PREDICT FOR SURE WHAT AMY CONEY
8:55
BARRETT WILL DO AND THERE ARE
8:56
OTHER WAYS THEY COULD STEAL THE
8:58
ELECTION.
8:59
THERE ARE LOCAL OFFICIALS THAT
9:01
DON'T HAVE THE BACKBONE OF A GUY
9:05
LIKE RAFFENSPERGER.
9:13
THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF WAYS TO
9:13
STEAL AN ELECTION, MORE THAN YOU
9:15
MIGHT IMAGINE.
9:17
THERE IS A LAW GOING BACK TO
9:19
1887, THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT,
9:20
THAT IS PROBABLY THE WORST
9:22
DRAFTED LAW I HAVE EVER READ.
9:24
IT'S GOT ONE AMBIGUITY AFTER
9:27
ANOTHER, ONE LOOPHOLE AFTER
9:28
ANOTHER, AND IT CAN BE USED IN
9:29
ALL KINDS OF WAYS.
9:31
THEY TRIED TO USE IT TO STRONG
9:33
ARM MIKE PENCE INTO EITHER
9:36
DECLARING TRUMP THE WINNER, EVEN
9:38
THOUGH HE WASN'T THE WINNER, OR
9:40
FAILING THAT, BASICALLY PUNTING
9:44
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
9:45
THERE'S A PROCEDURE BY WHICH
9:47
THAT CAN HAPPEN.
9:48
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
9:49
EACH STATE HAS ONE VOTE.
9:53
AND 26 OF THE STATE DELEGATIONS
9:56
IN 2020 WERE CONTROLLED BY
9:57
REPUBLICANS.
10:01
NOW, DISSECTING ALL THAT
10:02
HAPPENED IN 2020 IS AN
10:04
INTERESTING EXERCISE.
10:05
WE'LL LEARN MORE ABOUT IT WHEN
10:06
THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE HOLDS
10:08
ITS PUBLIC HEARINGS.
10:10
BUT AS JUDGE LUTTIG POINTS OUT,
10:13
IT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020
10:14
THAT WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT.
10:16
IT'S THE WAY 2020 WAS A DRY RUN,
10:20
A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR 2024.
10:23
AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE
10:25
METHODICALLY PUTTING IN PLACE A
10:28
SYSTEM FOR WINNING EVEN IF THEY
10:30
LOSE.
10:31
THAT'S REALLY SCARY, AND THERE
10:32
ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE
10:34
TO REDUCE THE RISK.
10:37
WE NEED TO AMEND THE ELECTORAL
10:40
COUNT ACT TO GET RID OF SOME OF
10:41
THOSE AMBIGUITIES.
10:43
WE NEED TO SHOOT DOWN THAT CRAZY
10:47
SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT STATE
10:48
LEGISLATURE THEORY.
10:49
THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF THINGS WE
10:51
NEED TO DO.
10:51
BUT ALL OF US NEED TO GET BUSY
10:53
AND TAKE THE RISK SERIOUSLY, AS
10:56
HE PUT IT, BEING FORE
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri May 20, 2022 9:16 am

Jan. 6 panel requests interview with GOP lawmaker who it says gave Capitol tour on Jan. 5
Reps. Cheney and Thompson asked to meet with Rep. Loudermilk next week — just weeks ahead of public hearings scheduled to start on June 9

by Jacqueline Alemany
Washington Post
May 19, 2022 at 3:04 p.m. EDT

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob issued a request on Thursday for an interview with Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), citing evidence the panel has obtained regarding a tour he led through parts of the Capitol complex the day before the attack.

In a letter to Loudermilk from the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and the vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the lawmakers write that the committee has obtained evidence that contradicts claims made by Republicans on the Committee on House Administration that “[t]here were no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on.”

Cheney and Thompson requested a meeting with Loudermilk next week — just weeks ahead of public hearings scheduled to start on June 9.

The latest request follows a slate of subpoenas issued to House GOP lawmakers who have declined to voluntarily comply with the committee’s inquiries. Loudermilk, who is a member of the Committee on House Administration, was one of the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election results and was in touch with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6, 2021, according to text messages obtained by CNN.

“It’s really bad up here on the hill. They have breached the Capitol,” the Georgia Republican wrote to Meadows during the attack.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri May 20, 2022 10:36 pm

Clarence Thomas' wife Ginni contacted Arizona lawmakers directly and tried to pressure them into overturning Biden's victory in 2020, damning new emails show
by Rob Crilly, Senior U.S. Political Reporter
DailyMail.com
PUBLISHED: 15:56 EDT, 20 May 2022 | UPDATED: 18:20 EDT, 20 May 2022

The wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Republicans in Arizona to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 election victory there, according to emails published on Friday.

Ginni Thomas repeated President Donald Trump's false claims that the election was marred by fraud.

'Please stand strong in the face of political and media pressure,' she wrote.

'Please reflect on the awesome authority granted to you by our constitution. And then please take action to ensure that a clean slate of electors is chosen for our state.'

The swing state of Arizona was central to Trump's claim that he was cheated of victory - and he was quick to come to Thomas' defense on Friday, calling her 'a great American patriot.'

Biden won the state by about 10,000 votes. The decision by Fox News to call the state for Biden infuriated Trump, and he has repeatedly disputed the outcome.

The messages reveal how Thomas was more deeply involved in the effort to reverse Joe Biden's 2020 win over President Donald Trump than previously known

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Great American Patriot, Ginni Thomas, the wonderful wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, is reported to have fought for Voter Integrity in the Great State of Arizona. Look at the findings of the Audit Report or the findings of the Attorney General of Arizona, which discuss the tremendous corruption & irregularities which took place in Arizona during the 2020 Presidential Election. Unfortunately, the Attorney General "talked," but seems to be doing nothing. Thank goodness for brave people like Ginni
May 20, 2022, 15:34


Trump praised her efforts in a post on Truth Social, calling Thomas a 'great American patriot'

Emails obtained by the Washington Post show Thomas, a conservative activist, messaged a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020, urging legislators to intervene.

'Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear,' said the Post.

The messages reveal how Thomas was more deeply involved in the effort to reverse Biden's win than previously known.

Trump praised her actions.

'Great American patriot, Ginni Thomas, the wonderful wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, is reported to have fought for voter integrity in the great state of Arizona,' he posted on Truth Social.

'Look at the findings of the audit report or the findings of the attorney general of Arizona, which discuss the tremendous corruption & irregularities which took place in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election.'

They will reignite concerns about conflicts of interest, following earlier reports that she had texted Mark Meadows, Trump's White House chief of staff, in the days after the election urging him to do anything he could to keep Biden out of power.

Ethics groups said her stance meant that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from election-related cases.

He was the only Supreme Court judge in January to say that Trump should be allowed not to hand over documents to the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Those documents included text messages to Meadows.

The latest revelations show that Thomas wrote that Article II of the Constitution gives state lawmakers the power to choose Electoral College electors.

Image
Thomas sent messages to Arizona State Representative Shawnna Bolick (left), who deflected a request for a meeting, and Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (right)

'This responsibility is yours and yours alone - it doesn't rest with any board of elections, secretary or state, governor, or even court,' she said.

And it certainly doesn't rest with the media

'That's why I am writing today to urge you to do your Constitutional duty.'

She goes on to request meetings with the two lawmakers 'so I can learn more about what you are doing to ensure our states vote is audited and our certification is clean.'

One of the lawmakers, Shawnna Bolick, deflected the request, saying instead: 'I hope you and Clarence are doing great!

Thomas reportedly replied: 'Fun that this came to you! Just part of our campaign to help states feel America's eyes!!!'

Thomas has insisted that she and her husband have kept their work separate, but her political activism has raised repeated questions.

A decade ago she and Steve Bannon — who went on to become Trump's chief strategist — were involved in Groundswell, a group formed to take on liberals and establishment Republicans.

Democrats have repeatedly slammed Thomas over his wife's activism.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recent said: 'I don't think he ever should have been appointed,' before saying she believed Congress should look into a provision of the House-passed H.R. 1 that would create a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices.

'If your wife is an admitted and proud contributor to a coup of our country, maybe you should weigh that in your ethical standards,' Pelosi said.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 am

Attorney John Eastman tries to hide 2 Trump handwritten insurrection notes from the J6 committee.
by Glenn Kirschner
May 22, 2022

Treasonous lawyer and architect of the insurrection John Eastman is attempting to hide from the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack two notes handwritten by Donald Trump that contain information Trump "thought might be useful for the anticipated litigation" regarding his efforts to overturn the election results, according to an article in Politico authored by Kyle Cheney.

Here is why Eastman's claim of executive privilege will fail and we will see the contest of those notes during the public hearings scheduled to begin on June 9.



so treasonous lawyer john eastman is
trying to hide from the j6 committee and
by extension from the american people
some really important evidence
involving donald trump's direct
involvement in the insurrection
spoiler alert
he won't get away with it
let's talk about that
because justice
matters
hey all glenn kirschner here
so an important little story snuck into
the news cycle in recent days without
much fanfare
but i want to spend a few minutes
talking about it today because
it has an unusual and potentially
impactful feature to it
it was reported by politico
and the reporter is kyle cheney who has
been doing a terrific job reporting on
all things insurrection
i will put a link to kyle's article in
the description of this video
here is the headline
eastman provides new details of trump's
direct role in legal effort to overturn
election
and the article begins
john eastman the architect of donald
trump's last ditch legal strategy to
overturn the 2020 election
revealed friday that he routinely
communicated with trump either directly
or
via six conduits
during the chaotic weeks that preceded
the january sixth attack on the capital
in a late night court filing urging a
federal judge to maintain the
confidentiality of his work for trump
eastman provided the clearest insight
yet into the blizzard of communications
between trump his top aides his campaign
lawyers and an army of outside attorneys
who were working to help reverse the
outcome in a handful of states won by
joe biden
the filing also describes the direct
role of trump himself
in developing strategy detailing two
handwritten notes from trump himself
about information that he thought might
be useful for the anticipated litigation
those notes are among the documents
eastman is seeking to shield via
attorney-client privilege
eastman is also urging the judge u.s
district court judge david carter of
california to shield dozens of contacts
with state legislators
some of whom he advised to appoint
slates of pro-trump electors
overriding the certified results of the
popular vote in their states
now friends
i have a few comments i want to make
about this story
first of all when john eastman said that
as he was trying to overturn the
election results he quote
routinely communicated with trump either
directly or
via six conduits
he used the word conduits but i think he
misspelled the word
conspirators
which
in context would make a lot more sense
that
as he was working to overturn the
election's results he routinely
communicated with trump either directly
or via six conspirators
and that seems to clear up that typo
second there is no such privilege as
attorney client and six conduit
privilege
third
judge david carter who's mentioned in
the article has already ruled in this
litigation that donald trump and john
eastman committed two federal felony
crimes
in their zeal
to corruptly overturn the election
results
therefore
the crime fraud exception
applies and it extinguishes
what might otherwise be
attorney client privileged information
but you know the unusual part of this
story friends is we've heard
maybe for the first time
that there is evidence
in trump's own handwriting two
handwritten note notes by trump that
eastman apparently has
that
you know in which trump sets out how to
go about overturning the election what
information might be helpful in the
litigation
yes so notes written by trump
i'm sure they
they may come complete with
sharpie drawings and misspellings and
improper capitalization
but these notes will probably be
important and i bet i bet
we will see them in the upcoming public
hearings
about the insurrection scheduled to kick
off on june 9th
because judge david carter will probably
continue
to rule that they do not enjoy
attorney-client privilege because you
know the attorney and the client were
working together
to overturn the results of a
presidential election they were working
together to you know bring an end to our
democracy and install donald trump
unconstitutionally for a second term as
a dictator
so the january 6 committee should get
those notes and we the people should see
those notes
during the course of the public hearings
scheduled to begin on june 9th
because
justice matters
friends as always please stay safe
please stay tuned and i look forward to
talking with you all again
tomorrow
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Tue May 24, 2022 5:50 am

Former Trump Administration Official Miles Taylor Announces Departure From the GOP
by Ayman Mohyeldin
May 23, 2022

Miles Taylor, a former Trump Administration official and the author of the 2018 NYT ‘Anonymous’ op-ed, announced this week he’s leaving the GOP. Taylor joined MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin to discuss why it took until now for him to renounce his old party.



JOINING ME NOW IS MILES TAYLOR,
0:10
THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT
0:11
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
0:13
SECURITY IN THE TRUMP
0:13
ADMINISTRATION.
0:14
HE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
0:15
THE RENEW AMERICA MOVEMENT.
0:17
MILES, GREAT TO HAVE YOU.
0:18
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING
0:19
TIME FOR US THIS EVENING.
0:20
LET'S START WITH BUFFALO.
0:22
WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU
0:24
HEARD WHAT HAPPENED IN BUFFALO?
0:28
>> AYMAN, I'LL BE HONEST WITH
0:30
YOU, IT REMINDED ME OF
0:32
SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAD A
0:34
PRETTY PROFOUND EFFECT ON ME ON
0:36
IF --
0:37
A FEW YEARS AGO.
0:37
YOU RECALLED THE MASS SHOOTING
0:39
IN EL PASO, TEXAS.
0:41
THE SHOOTER WALKED INTO A
0:42
WALMART.
0:44
KILLED OR INJURED DOZENS OF
0:46
PEOPLE.
0:47
IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTACK, WHEN
0:49
THEY FOUND THE MANIFESTO, HE
0:51
CITED AN INVASION AT THE
0:53
SOUTHERN BORDER AS ONE OF THE
0:55
REASONS HE CONDUCTED THE
0:56
ATTACK.
0:57
THAT WAS ALARMING FOR TWO
0:58
REASONS.
0:59
ONE, JUST THE NAKED RACISM
1:02
BEHIND THE BRUTALITY.
1:04
TWO, THE SHOOTER ECHOED THE
1:06
SAME LANGUAGE WE RECEIVED FROM
1:08
DONALD TRUMP IN THAT TIME
1:09
PERIOD.
1:10
I HAD ALREADY QUIT THE
1:12
ADMINISTRATION IN PROTEST, BUT
1:13
IT WAS THE TYPE OF THING WE HAD
1:14
BEEN WARNING ABOUT FOR YEARS,
1:17
THAT THIS DANGEROUS RHETORIC
1:20
WAS LIKE A LOADED GUN FOR
1:22
EXTREMISTS.
1:23
WHEN I HEARD WHAT HAPPENED IN
1:24
BUFFALO, VERY SHORTLY AFTER WE
1:26
GOT NEWS OF THE ATTACK WE
1:27
STARTED TO GET NEWS ABOUT THE
1:28
SHOOTER'S MOTIVATIONS.
1:29
IT WAS A REMINDER THAT YET
1:31
AGAIN, THIS EXTREME RHETORIC
1:33
FROM THE PARTY WAS NOT JUST
1:35
RESULTING IN EXTREME BEHAVIOR,
1:38
IT WAS RESULTING IN VIOLENCE
1:39
AND DEATH AND TRAGEDY.
1:42
I SPENT THE WEEKEND THINKING
1:44
ABOUT THAT AND THINKING ABOUT
1:46
WHETHER THERE WAS ANY UTILITY
1:48
AND TRYING TO STAY INSIDE THE
1:50
PARTY TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
1:51
CENTER, OR WHETHER THIS WAS
1:52
EVIDENCE THAT IT IS JUST ALL
1:54
GONE TOO FAR, SUCH THAT THE
1:57
REPUBLICAN PARTY IS
1:58
IRREDEEMABLE, WHICH I THINK IT
1:59
IS AT THIS POINT.
2:00
>> SO THIS IRREDEEMABLE PARTY,
2:04
THIS PARTY, AS YOU DESCRIBED IT
2:06
NOW, IF THIS WING OR FASCIST
2:09
WING OF THE GOP CONTINUES TO
2:11
LEAD THE PARTY, WHAT DO YOU
2:14
FEAR COULD HAPPEN IN AMERICA
2:16
GENERALLY, IN 2024 AND 2028, IF
2:20
THEY ARE, AS EXPECTED TO TAKE
2:21
CONTROL OF THE HOUSE IN 2024,
2:23
AND WHO KNOWS --
2:24
EXCUSE ME, IT 2022 AND 2024, IF
2:28
THEY FEEL --
2:30
>> A, MINUTES REALLY TOUGH TO
2:32
BREAKTHROUGH THE PEOPLE ON THIS,
2:33
BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I
2:35
START TO WARN PEOPLE WORK
2:37
ADDENDA, OR JAMES CLYBURN
2:39
SAYING THIS COULD BE AUTOCRACY,
2:40
WE ARE OFTEN WRITTEN OFF AS
2:41
BEING HYPERBOLIC.
2:43
I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU,
2:44
FROM HAVING LIVED INSIDE THIS
2:46
PARTY MOST OF MY LIFE, FROM
2:47
HAVING SERVED TWO REPUBLICAN
2:49
PRESIDENTS, STILL COMMUNICATING
2:51
WITH PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE OF
2:52
THE PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST
2:53
LEVELS CONSTANTLY, I AM MORE
2:55
ALARMED THAN I'VE EVER BEEN.
2:57
FOLKS WHO THINK THAT WE
2:59
DEFEATED THE
3:01
PSEUDO-AUTHORITARIAN THREAT
3:02
WITHIN THE GOP IN 2020, WHEN
3:03
DONALD TRUMP LOST.
3:05
THEY'RE WRONG.
3:06
THEY COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.
3:08
THE THREAT IS MUCH BIGGER TODAY
3:09
THAN IT WAS IN 20, 2016,
3:13
BECAUSE TRUMP AND THE
3:14
PHENOMENON OF TRUMPISM HAS
3:16
MORPHED, RICHARD AND
3:19
METASTASIZED WITHIN THE
3:20
REPUBLICAN PARTY, TO THE POINT
3:21
THAT NO ONE CAN REVERSE IT.
3:23
I ADMIRE LIZ CHENEY AND ADAM
3:25
KINZINGER FOR STILL TRYING TO
3:27
FIGHT THE FIGHT WITHIN THE
3:28
PARTY, BUT WHAT'S ALARMS ME IS
3:30
THAT THE BASE OF THE PARTY HAS
3:32
NOW BEEN SO COMPLETELY
3:34
RADICALIZED, AND AGAIN, FOLKS
3:35
WILL ACCUSE US OF HYPERBOLE FOR
3:38
SAYING, THAT BUT IF YOU GO LOOK
3:39
AT THE DATA, THE MAJORITY OR
3:41
CLOSE TO THE MAJORITY
3:42
REPUBLICANS NOW BELIEVE THE
3:43
STOLEN ELECTION LIE.
3:45
THEY BELIEVE THE QANON AND THEY
3:48
BELIEVE THE RACIST GREAT
3:49
REPLACEMENT THEORY.
3:50
THIS IS THE CORE OF THE
3:52
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
3:53
IT WILL TAKE A GENERATION TO
3:56
EXCISE THIS FROM THE PARTY.
3:57
MY WORRY IS THAT THE LONGER THE
3:59
GOP BASE REMAINS RADICALIZED,
4:02
THE MORE VIOLENCE WE ARE GOING
4:03
TO SEE, THE MORE UNCIVIL
4:04
RHETORIC, AND THE MORE
4:06
DETERIORATION TO OUR DEMOCRATIC
4:08
FOUNDATIONS.
4:08
THAT REALLY IS THE WORRY.
4:09
I DON'T THINK JAMES CLYBURN IS
4:11
WRONG AND SAYING IF THAT
4:12
HAPPENS, IT IS A SLOW SLIDE FOR
4:15
AUTOCRACY.
4:16
>> THERE IS NO DOUBT, MILES,
4:18
THAT DONALD TRUMP ACCELERATED A
4:20
LOT OF THESE TURNS THAT THE
4:22
REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS TAKEN.
4:23
I WANT TO JUST HONE IN ON
4:24
SOMETHING EURO, WHICH IS IN
4:26
YOUR PIECE, YOU WRITE THE PARTY
4:27
OF LINCOLN ONCE STOOD ON,
4:29
GRANTED SOLID GROUND, PROMOTING
4:30
FREE, MINES FREE MARKETS, FREE
4:32
PEOPLE.
4:33
SOME OF OUR VIEWERS MAY BE
4:34
WATCHING THIS AND THINKING,
4:35
WHAT TIME PERIOD ARE YOU
4:37
REFERENCING HERE, BECAUSE THE
4:38
60S AND 70S --
4:40
YOU KNOW THIS COUNTRY SAW THE
4:41
GOP FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL
4:43
AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS, THE 80S,
4:44
THE PARTY SOUGHT TO DEMONIZE
4:46
LGBTQ PEOPLE DURING THE AIDS
4:48
CRISIS, 2000 YOU SAW THE PARTY
4:51
REVELING AND ISLAMOPHOBIA AND
4:53
BIRTHERISM.
4:54
IT GAVE BIRTH TO DONALD TRUMP
4:56
AND ULTIMATELY TO WHAT WE ARE
4:58
SEEING NOW.
4:59
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GOP OVER
5:00
THE LAST 40 YEARS, WHEN DO YOU
5:02
THINK THIS PARTY WAS THE PARTY
5:04
THAT YOU BELIEVED IN AND
5:06
COMMITTED TO?
5:07
>> WELL, LOOK, AYMAN, WE MIGHT
5:12
DISAGREE.
5:13
I'M A BIG FAN OF RONALD REAGAN,
5:15
GEORGE W. BUSH, WHOSE
5:16
ADMINISTRATION I SERVED IN.
5:17
I THINK GOOD THINGS HAPPEN IN
5:19
THE PARTY THROUGH VARIOUS
5:20
PERIODS, BUT MY WORRY IS NOT
5:22
EVEN THAT THE GOP IS REGRESSING
5:24
TO THE 50S, WHICH A LOT OF
5:26
PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
5:27
THE 1950S.
5:28
I'M WORRIED THAT THE GOP IN
5:29
SOME WAYS IS PROGRESSING TO THE
5:31
1850S.
5:32
I'VE BEEN RE-READING THE
5:34
NARRATIVE OF THE LIFE OF
5:35
FREDERICK DOUGLASS.
5:36
IT'S ALMOST EERIE WHEN YOU GO
5:38
BACK AND YOU READ WRITINGS FROM
5:40
THAT TIME PERIOD ABOUT HOW EVEN
5:43
WELL INTENTIONED PEOPLE ARE
5:44
WALTZING ZOMBIE LIKE INTO THIS
5:46
RACIST AMERICAN POLITICAL
5:49
ENVIRONMENT.
5:50
AND NO, WE ARE NOT LIVING IN
5:52
THE 1850S IN TERMS OF THE
5:54
SCOURGE OF SLAVERY, BUT BOY,
5:56
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
5:58
ARE ZOMBIE LIKE AND NOT WAKING
6:00
UP TO THE REALIZATION THAT
6:02
RACISM HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED IN
6:05
THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT WE'VE
6:06
GOT PEOPLE RADICALIZED BY GOP
6:08
RHETORIC WHO ARE GOING AND
6:10
SHOOTING BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE
6:13
IN GROCERY STORES TO CARRY OUT
6:14
A POLITICAL OBJECTIVE.
6:16
I SPENT MOST OF MY CAREER DOING
6:18
COUNTER-TERRORISM.
6:19
THIS IS, BY DEFINITION,
6:21
TERRORISM.
6:22
AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS
6:24
PROVIDING THE IDEOLOGICAL
6:26
MOTIVATION THAT IS RADICALIZING
6:28
PEOPLE TO COMMIT TERRORIST
6:31
ACTS.
6:32
AYMAN, THIS IS ONE WE SAW WITH
6:33
THE RISE OF AL-QAEDA, THE RISE
6:35
OF ISIS.
6:35
I NEVER IN MY LIFE THOUGHT I
6:37
WOULD SEE THAT RADICALIZING
6:38
RHETORIC FROM MY PARTY, THE
6:41
REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND RESULTING
6:42
IN THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS ON
6:45
AMERICAN SOIL.
6:45
THAT IS WHEN WE ARE WITNESSING.
6:47
IT IS NOT JUST A PHYSICAL
6:49
THREAT TO AMERICANS WITH A
6:50
SPIKE IN DOMESTIC TERROR.
6:52
IT'S A THREAT TO THE
6:53
FOUNDATIONS OF OUR DEMOCRACY,
6:55
BECAUSE THE GOP IS SPREADING
6:57
THIS DEEPLY ILLIBERAL VIEW OF
6:59
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A
7:00
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
7:02
THAT IS THE DEEPEST ALARM.
7:04
I NO LONGER THINK WE CAN REFORM
7:05
THE GOP FROM WITHIN.
7:06
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO COUNTER IT
7:07
FROM WITHOUT.
7:09
>> LET ME ASK YOU FINALLY, IF I
7:11
CAN, WHY WAS THIS THE FINAL
7:14
STRAW?
7:15
WHY WAS IT THE FINAL STRAW, TO
7:16
SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN BUFFALO
7:17
AND SAY IT WAS TIME FOR YOU TO
7:19
LEAVE?
7:19
WHAT ABOUT TRUMP WHEN HE TRIED
7:21
TO IMPOSE THE COMPLETE BAN ON
7:23
MUSLIMS ENTERING THE UNITED
7:24
STATES OR THE WAY HE DENIGRATED
7:28
MEXICANS AND MIGRANTS OR HIS
7:30
ANTISEMITISM --
7:31
WHY WAS THIS THE MOMENT YOU'VE
7:33
SAID I'M OUT?
7:34
>> IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.
7:35
IT WOULD BE A FAIR CRITICISM.
7:37
MY RESPONSE, THOUGH, IS THAT
7:38
PERHAPS, NAIVELY, IN THAT TIME
7:40
PERIOD, I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT
7:43
TRUMP REPRESENTED THE CORE OF
7:45
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
7:46
I DID NOT BELIEVE HE
7:47
REPRESENTED THE MILLIONS OF
7:48
GOOD AMERICANS WHO WERE
7:49
CENTRIST REPUBLICANS, AND THAT
7:51
HE WAS THE THREAT, AND THAT HE
7:53
HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
7:54
IT HAS BECOME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
7:56
THAT IT IS NO LONGER JUST ABOUT
7:58
TRUMP.
7:59
THERE REALLY IS TRULY A
8:00
RADICALIZED BASE IN THE
8:03
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
8:04
THAT IS SOMETHING I KNOW LONGER
8:05
THINK WE CAN REFORM ANYWHERE IN
8:08
THE NEAR TERM, AND TO DEFEAT IT,
8:09
WE'VE GOT TO DO IT FROM
8:10
OUTSIDE.
8:11
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
8:12
IT'S NOT AN EASY DECISION TO
8:14
MAKE.
8:14
NOBODY'S GOT TO PLAY THE VIOLIN
8:15
FOR ME, BUT IT'S TOUGH TO
8:18
CHANGE THAT PART OF YOUR
8:20
IDENTITY, BUT I WOULD URGE
8:21
OTHER REPUBLICANS OUT THERE TO
8:22
DO THE SAME THING.
8:23
I HOPE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO LEAVE
8:24
IN DROVES LIKE THEY DID AFTER
8:26
THE JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTION.
8:29
IT'S TIME TO LEAVE THE GOP.
8:30
START SOMETHING YOU.
8:31
BECOME AN INDEPENDENT.
8:32
JOIN THE DEMOCRATS IF YOU AGREE
8:34
WITH THEM, BUT THE REPUBLICAN
8:35
PARTY IS NO LONGER A HOME TO
8:37
RATIONAL REPUBLICANS AND
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:46 am

Order Re Privilege of 599 Documents Dated November 3, 2020-January 20, 2021
by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter
John C. Eastman, Plaintiff, vs. Bennie G. Thompson, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, and Chapman University
Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM
June 7, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN C. EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE US CAPITOL, AND CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.

Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM

ORDER RE PRIVILEGE OF 599 DOCUMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2020 - JANUARY 20, 2021

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND
II. LEGAL STANDARD
III. DISCUSSION
A. Work Product
1. Anticipation of litigation
2. Preparation by or for a client’s representative
3. Waiver of protection
4. Substantial or compelling need exception
B. Attorney-Client Privilege
1. Clients seeking legal advice from attorneys
2. Confidentiality
C. Crime-fraud exception
1. Timeframe
2. Emails related to and in furtherance of the crimes
D. First Amendment
IV. DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Dr. John Eastman (“Dr. Eastman”), a former law school dean at Chapman University (“Chapman”), is a “political conservative who supported former President [Donald] Trump” and a self-described “activist law professor.”1 While he was a professor at Chapman, Dr. Eastman worked with President Trump and his campaign on legal and political strategy regarding the November 3, 2020 election.

This case concerns the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol’s (“Select Committee”) attempt to obtain Dr. Eastman’s emails from his Chapman email account between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021. The parties disagree on whether those documents are privileged, and thus protected from disclosure.

BACKGROUND

In its prior Order, the Court extensively detailed the events of January 6, 2021, and Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s actions leading up to and on that day.2 Accordingly, the Court discusses only the case’s procedural history here.

Dr. Eastman filed his Complaint in this Court on January 20, 2022. On January 31, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to begin his production with documents dated January 4-7, 2021.3 On March 28, 2022, after briefing and a hearing, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose 101 of those 111 documents to the Select Committee.4 Dr. Eastman produced the 101 documents in the first week of April 2022.5

Dr. Eastman completed his privilege review of the remaining documents on April 19, and the parties then cooperated to reduce their privilege claims and objections. On May 2, Dr. Eastman produced to the Select Committee 933 documents and a consolidated privilege log identifying 2,018 documents over which he claims privilege.6 The Select Committee withdrew its objections to 721 documents and reserved the right to raise objections to 576 documents at a later date. After receiving the final list of disputed documents, the Court immediately began reviewing the documents while the parties submitted briefing on their claims.

On May 19, 2022, Dr. Eastman filed his Brief supporting his privilege assertions over the remaining 599 documents.7 The Select Committee filed its Opposition (“Opp’n”) on March 2, 2022.8 Dr. Eastman filed his Reply on May 31, 2022.9

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal common law governs the attorney-client privilege when courts adjudicate issues of federal law.10 “As with all evidentiary privileges, the burden of proving that the attorney-client privilege applies rests not with the party contesting the privilege, but with the party asserting it.”11 The “party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.”12 The party must assert the privilege “as to each record sought to allow the court to rule with specificity.”13 “Because it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.”14 The same burden applies to the party asserting work product protection.15

DISCUSSION

The Court will first consider work product protection, then attorney-client privilege, and finally the First Amendment. For documents where Dr. Eastman claims both work product and attorney client privilege, the Court will only address attorney-client privilege if it finds that work product protection does not apply. The Court draws substantially on its reasoning in its prior Order, which addressed many of the same legal and factual issues.

A. Work Product

Dr. Eastman claims 555 documents are protected work product, and he also claims attorney-client privilege over 152 of those 555 documents. For documents where Dr. Eastman asserts both privileges, the Court will first decide whether work product protection applies. If a document is not protected work product, the Court will then determine whether attorney-client privilege prevents disclosure.

Documents are protected work product if they are (1) “‘prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial,’” and (2) “prepared ‘by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.’”16 The Court considers each requirement in turn.

1. Anticipation of litigation

Documents qualify for work product protection if they were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.”17 However, some litigation documents are also prepared for a second, non-litigation purpose. Those documents are protected when they were “created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation.”18

The Court groups its analysis of the 555 documents into six categories: ongoing suits, the Electoral Count Act plan, state elections, documents for Congress, connecting third parties, and news articles.

Draft filings related to ongoing suits

360 of the 555 documents relate to ongoing litigation in state or federal court. Eleven of those documents seek or send legal research for case filings,19 and another fifty-seven documents make recommendations or edits to court filings or forward draft filings.20 292 documents discuss litigation strategy for ongoing cases.21 All of these 360 documents were clearly prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Electoral Count Act plan

Eleven of the 555 documents relate to Dr. Eastman’s proposal for Vice President Pence to reject or delay counting electoral votes on January 6, 2021.22 As discussed in the Court’s prior Order, the plan was intended “to proceed without judicial involvement” and thus emails pertaining to the plan were not made in anticipation of litigation.23

Five of those eleven emails discuss actions to support the plan to disrupt the Joint Session.24 One forwards a now-public November memo about the plan,25 and one discusses actions that Vice President Pence could take on January 6.26 Three documents discuss actions for alternate state electors to take in the days leading up to January 6.27 Because these documents only relate to the political plan for January 6, they were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are not protected.

Three of the eleven documents discuss suits brought by third parties about the legality of the Electoral Count Act.28 These emails do not discuss how this litigation might affect the participants’ existing lawsuits; they only consider how these suits could disrupt their plan for January 6. As the Court previously described, “[t]he true animating force behind these emails was advancing a political strategy: to persuade Vice President Pence to take unilateral action on January 6.”29 Because these documents were not created in anticipation of litigation, they are not protected.

In contrast, three of the eleven documents place the January 6 plan in the context of litigation strategy.30 Two of those documents are separate email chains discussing strategy for a filing in an election-related case and its potential effects on the January 6 plan.31 Similarly, one document is an email chain discussing the viability of election-related lawsuits after January 6.32 While these emails relate to the January 6 plan, the team’s ongoing and future litigation “animate[d] every document,”33 such that they were created in anticipation of litigation.

Accordingly, the Court finds that eight of these eleven documents were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus ORDERS them to be disclosed to the Select Committee.

State election-related documents

Dr. Eastman claims work product protection over 170 documents relating to alleged fraud in state elections.

Fifty-four of those emails are Dr. Eastman advising state legislators or circulating his theories on their authority.34 Thirty-seven of those coordinate meetings with state legislators or other third parties to discuss alleged election fraud and certifying electors.35 Another fifteen documents send or discuss information for state legislators about their legislative authority.36 Two documents include Dr. Eastman’s request for updates on state legislative subpoenas.37 All fifty-four documents do not relate to or mention anticipated litigation and are thus not protected.

Four of the 170 documents relate to President Trump’s views on state elections.38 One is a communication from President Trump about a state campaign rally.39 Three documents discuss President Trump’s potential press releases on state electors.40 These documents do not reference litigation and Dr. Eastman fails to provide context as to how they could pertain to litigation. Accordingly, these four documents are not protected.

Forty-two of the 170 documents are reports or analyses of alleged state election irregularities.41 Review of the emails shows that these documents served several purposes: they were distributed to state and federal legislators, discussed in public hearings, and also used to support election-related litigation. The reports are largely statistical analyses; they make no reference to litigation and have no indication of being tailored for potential suits. Because these forty-two documents would “have been created in substantially similar form” without the prospect of litigation, they are not protected work product.42

Seventy of the 170 documents are emails discussing the election data reports discussed above.43 Forty-six of these are emails between various attorneys discussing statistical data in the context of state election litigation.44 These emails would not have been made in the same form if not for litigation and are thus protected. Eighteen other emails are predominantly Dr. Eastman and statisticians discussing election analyses that they used for both litigation and political purposes.45 Like the contents of the reports themselves, these discussions would have had the same form without the prospect of litigation and thus are not protected. Dr. Eastman admits that an additional six emails discussing election reports46 were created for “adjudicatory proceedings in Congress and/or the state legislatures,” not litigation.47 Although he argues that adjudication of electors is analogous to litigation, his only support for this novel claim is a district court case that did not address the issue.48 Accordingly, these twenty-four documents are not protected.

Of these 170 state election-related documents, 124 were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are not protected work product. Because Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over thirty-seven of those 124 documents,49 the Court discusses those attorney-client claims below. The remaining eighty-seven documents50 were not created in anticipation of litigation and have no attorney-client privilege claim, so the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.

Documents for Congress

Three documents are email chains gathering information for members of Congress.51 Two of those documents do not mention litigation and solely collect materials for Congress.52 The third email chain discusses litigation plans, but also includes a paragraph recommending talking points for members of Congress on their alleged authority to delay the electoral count.53 This paragraph is not in anticipation of litigation and must be disclosed, with the remainder of the document redacted.

Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over one of the three documents discussed in this section,54 so the Court discusses that document below. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the other two documents55 must be disclosed.

Connecting third parties

Four documents connect third parties to Dr. Eastman.56 Two of those connect Dr. Eastman to state legislators and their attorneys.57 The other two emails are people reaching out to Dr. Eastman to offer suggestions or praise.58 As was the case for similar documents discussed in the prior Order, none of these documents relate to or implicate litigation. Accordingly, these four documents are not protected and the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.

News articles

Seven documents share news articles or Twitter posts.59 These public articles and posts were not created for litigation, and the minimal commentary contained in the emails is unrelated to litigation. As such, these seven documents are not protected work product.

Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over two of the seven documents,60 so the Court discusses those below. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the other five documents61 to be disclosed.

2. Preparation by or for a client’s representative

The Court now examines whether the 409 documents that were created in anticipation of litigation were created by or for a party or “party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, . . . or agent),” which is the second requirement for work product protection.62 Accordingly, documents are protected if they were prepared by or for President Trump or another client, or by or for Dr. Eastman or another representative of those clients.63

404 of these 409 documents relate to representing President Trump or his campaign. All 404 documents were prepared and/or sent by or for members of the White House and campaign staff, attorneys of record in court cases (including Dr. Eastman), and those attorneys’ staff. Because these documents were created by or for agents of President Trump or his campaign, they are protected work product.

The other five documents relate to Dr. Eastman advising Georgia legislators on potential lawsuits.64 All of those emails were prepared by the clients’ agents, Dr. Eastman or the legislators’ other counsel, so they are protected work product.

3. Waiver of protection

The Court now considers whether Dr. Eastman waived his privilege over any of the 409 documents that the Court concluded above were protected work product. Unlike attorney-client privilege, which is waived if not kept completely confidential, work product protection is only waived when attorneys disclose their work to “an adversary or a conduit to an adversary in litigation.”65

As the Court previously ruled, Dr. Eastman’s use of his Chapman University email address did not destroy Dr. Eastman’s privilege over his communications.66

Dr. Eastman did not disclose any of the 409 documents to a conduit to an adversary in litigation. The documents were all exchanged between members of President Trump and his campaign’s litigation teams; President Trump’s staff; and likeminded experts, consultants, and volunteers. Moreover, many of the documents were labeled confidential or “attorney work product,” reinforcing Dr. Eastman’s assertion that his team did not intend for these documents to be disclosed to adversaries.

4. Substantial or compelling need exception

As was the case in the Court’s prior decision, all of the 409 protected documents are ‘opinion’ work product because they include attorneys’ thoughts and legal theories. Opinion work product “is virtually undiscoverable.”67 A court may compel disclosure of opinion work product only in the rare situation “when mental impressions are the pivotal issue in the current litigation and the need for the material is compelling.”68

As the Court previously found, review of the 409 protected documents shows that none are “pivotal” to the Select Committee’s investigation. The majority of the documents include opinions and discussions about trial strategy in ongoing or anticipated lawsuits. As discussed above, this litigation was a “legitimate form of recourse, and is not tied to the investigation’s core purpose, which is to ‘investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol.’”69 Accordingly, none of these 409 non-“pivotal” litigation-related documents shall be disclosed based on compelling need.

* * *

Having evaluated each element of work product protection, the Court finds that 409 documents are protected work product and 146 documents are not protected work product. Dr. Eastman also claims attorney client privilege over 40 of the 146 documents that are not protected work product,70 so the Court will determine disclosure for these 40 documents under attorney-client privilege below. Thus, the Court ORDERS the other 106 documents to be disclosed.71

B. Attorney-Client Privilege

The Court now moves from work product protection to Dr. Eastman’s claims of attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients for the purpose of legal advice.72 However, “advice on political, strategic, or policy issues” is not protected.73 The privilege extends to communications with agents of the clients and third parties assisting the attorney.74

Dr. Eastman claims attorney-client privilege over 166 documents. Because the Court found above that 112 of those documents were protected work product, the Court here considers the remaining fifty-four documents.75

1. Clients seeking legal advice from attorneys

Below, the Court considers whether an attorney-client relationship existed and whether the client was seeking legal advice when communicating with their attorney.

President Trump as client

The Court previously found that Dr. Eastman had an attorney-client relationship with President Trump between January 4-7, 2021.76 Dr. Eastman was counsel of record on several cases representing President Trump and his campaign in post-election litigation beginning in November 2020.77 In that capacity he communicated with members of the campaign and White House staff, and their emails confirm that they viewed him as President Trump’s attorney. An attorney-client relationship between Dr. Eastman and President Trump thus existed throughout the subpoena’s time period.

For five of the fifty-four documents, Dr. Eastman claims attorney-client privilege involving his representation of President Trump.78 Three of the five documents are news articles or photos from President Trump sent by his Executive Assistant to Dr. Eastman.79 Dr. Eastman does not explain how these seek legal advice. Although Dr. Eastman’s privilege log claims that the photo is President Trump’s “handwritten note re issues for anticipated litigation,” the note simply celebrates the size of President Trump’s campaign rallies.80 The other two documents discuss how to frame President Trump’s potential press statement on certifying alternate electors in swing states.81 These documents do not discuss any legal questions about the statement, but rather focus on framing. Because these five documents were not created for legal advice, they are not protected and the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.

Legislators as potential clients

Forty of the fifty-four documents involve state legislators as potential clients.82 The attorney-client privilege extends to potential clients who seek legal advice from an attorney.83 Dr. Eastman submits his sworn declaration attesting that these legislators were potential clients,84 and the contents of the emails support his assertion.

Fifteen of the forty documents are email communications between Dr. Eastman, two Pennsylvania state legislators, and an agent of those legislators.85 The first email is the legislators’ agent asking Dr. Eastman for legal advice, which Dr. Eastman describes as “regarding the constitutional authority of state legislatures to deal with election illegality and fraud.”86 Two documents are an email chain containing this inquiry and Dr. Eastman’s initial response, which are protected; the remainder of the chain is not for legal advice, so Dr. Eastman must disclose redacted versions of the two documents.87 Two more documents are Dr. Eastman’s attachments to his response, which are protected attorney-client communications.88 The eleven documents constituting the remainder of the chain schedule Zoom meetings or discuss state politics.89 Those emails were not for the purpose of legal advice and so must be disclosed.

Nine of the forty documents involve Georgia legislators.90 Six documents include Georgia state legislators making explicit legal inquiries to Dr. Eastman and are therefore for the purpose of legal advice.91 One additional document merely seeks a Zoom link and is thus not protected.92 Two documents share a draft petition by Georgia state legislators but do not seek legal advice and are therefore not protected.93

Nine of the forty documents involve Arizona state legislators.94 Four of those include a state legislator asking for Dr. Eastman’s advice on a draft resolution and are therefore for the purpose of legal advice.95 One document includes an email asking about the intersection of state and federal election law and thus seeks legal advice; the rest of the document is not for legal advice, so Dr. Eastman must disclose the unprotected portions.96 Four documents coordinate scheduling calls and are therefore not for the purpose of legal advice,97 so they must be disclosed.

Five of the forty documents circulate a Zoom invitation and discuss strategy pertaining to election investigations and strategy in several states.98 One of the documents is protected because it contains two emails seeking legal advice from Dr. Eastman about legislative authority.99 Four of the documents do not seek legal advice,100 so they are not protected.

Two of the forty documents seek and provide information to encourage Members of Congress to object to certain electoral slates.101 While these emails refer to alleged violations of state law, the purpose of the exchange is to encourage Members to object, not to seek legal advice. Accordingly, these two documents are not protected.

The Court finds that twenty-seven of these forty state legislator-related documents are not protected and ORDERS them to be disclosed.

Dr. Eastman as client

For three of the fifty-four documents, Dr. Eastman is the potential client.102 In these emails, Dr. Eastman discusses with another attorney whether to bring a suit for “breach of contract and violation of constitutional rights.”103 Dr. Eastman’s sworn declaration confirms the same.104 These documents explicitly seek legal advice and representation.

No client relationship

Six of the fifty-four documents include no client or involve third parties without supported client relationships.105

One of the six documents is a report on alleged state election irregularities,106 which does not contain or seek legal advice. Thus, this document is not protected.

Another two of the six documents are between Dr. Eastman and a third party asking for information on Michigan election law violations.107 Dr. Eastman provides no information about this third party to link him to any existing or potential client. Accordingly, Dr. Eastman has not met his burden to demonstrate that these two documents are protected.

Three of the six documents include an email planning a call for state legislators about decertifying electors and attaching two related memos.108 While these documents contain some brief legal references, no client appears to have sought this legal information. The majority of the documents do not offer legal advice but aim to persuade legislators to take political action. Accordingly, these three documents are not protected.

Since these six documents are not protected, the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.

2. Confidentiality

The Court found above that nineteen full or partial documents were communications between an attorney and client for the purpose of seeking legal advice.109 In order for these communications to be privileged, they must also have been kept confidential.110 The presence of a third party does not necessarily destroy confidentiality if that third party is an agent of the client or attorney.111 But the third party’s “shared desire to see the same outcome in a legal matter is insufficient” to maintain confidentiality.112

Nine of the nineteen documents are solely between the client, the client’s agent, and confirmed counsel.113 Accordingly, these nine documents are protected.

Four of the nineteen documents are between Dr. Eastman and a third party who is in communication with an Arizona state senator.114 Dr. Eastman submits a sworn declaration that this third party is an agent of the state senator, and the contents of the emails confirm the agent relationship. Accordingly, these four documents are confidential and thus protected.

Two of the nineteen documents involve a potential representation of two Georgia state senators.115 Those emails are between the two potential clients, their counsel, Dr. Eastman, and a third party. The attorney for the legislators submitted a sworn declaration that the third party was an attorney working as his agent in this matter.116 Accordingly, those emails are confidential and therefore privileged.

Three of the nineteen emails involve a potential representation of a different Georgia state senator.117 While Dr. Eastman provided a sworn declaration that he offered pro bono legal advice to this senator, there are four other people on the emails whom Dr. Eastman identifies as “attorneys working with the Trump legal team.”118 However, the client in this case was not President Trump or his campaign. Without further evidence specifying the relationship between these Trump attorneys and this state legislator, the Court cannot find these communications to be confidential. Accordingly, these three emails are not privileged and must be disclosed.

Similarly, the final of the nineteen documents is an email between a third party and Dr. Eastman relating to a potential representation of a state legislator.119 Dr. Eastman’s declaration, briefing, and privilege log all fail to provide any support for this third party’s relationship to the potential client. Because the email is not confidential, it is not privileged and must be disclosed.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the four of the nineteen documents that are not confidential.120

* * *

Having evaluated each element of attorney-client privilege, the Court finds that 12 documents are privileged and 42 documents are not privileged. Thus, the Court ORDERS the 42 documents to be disclosed.121

C. Crime-fraud exception

Based on the Court’s previous analysis, the Court has required disclosure of 148 unprotected communications. 421 documents are protected either by work product or attorney-client privilege, so the Court now considers whether those documents should be disclosed under the crime-fraud exception.

The crime-fraud exception applies when (1) a “client consults an attorney for advice that will serve [them] in the commission of a fraud or crime,”122 and (2) the communications are “sufficiently related to” and were made “in furtherance of” the crime.123 It is irrelevant whether the scheme was ultimately successful.124 An attorney’s wrongdoing alone may pierce the privilege, regardless of the client’s awareness or innocence.125 The exception extinguishes both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.126

The majority of the remaining protected documents are clearly legitimate legal or litigation communications. However, five documents reference the plan to delay or stop the electoral count on January 6, 2021, and therefore present a close call as to whether they fall within the crime-fraud exception.127

1. Timeframe

The Court previously held that from January 4-7, 2021, President Trump and Dr. Eastman likely committed obstruction of an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, when they attempted to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.128 Because the remaining protected documents pre-date that time period, the Court now determines whether those attempted crimes began earlier.

The previously disclosed documents indicate that Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan to disrupt the Joint Session was fully formed and actionable as early as December 7, 2020. On that day, Dr. Eastman forwarded a memo explaining why January 6 was the “Hard Deadline” that was “critical to the result of this election” for the Trump Campaign.129 A week later, on December 13, President Trump’s personal attorney received a more robust analysis of January 6’s significance, which was potentially “the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action.”130

The current set of documents also confirm that the plan was established well before January 6, 2021. In an email on December 22, 2020, an attorney with the Trump legal team referred to the “the January 6 strategy” as a known plan to eight other people.131 Two days later, Dr. Eastman explained that the worst case for the plan was receiving a court decision that constrained Vice President Pence’s authority to reject electors.132 Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan to stop the count was not only established by early December, it was the ultimate goal that the legal team was working to protect from that point forward.

2. Emails related to and in furtherance of the crimes

Four of these five documents consider how filing certain election lawsuits might affect the January 6 plan.133 In these emails, Dr. Eastman and his colleagues discuss how to frame their legal filings in light of what they considered a near-zero chance of success in the D.C. courts.134 Attorneys reference January 6 not as the day to enact the plan, but as a deadline to bring timely and effective lawsuits. As the Court noted in its prior Order, “pursuing legal recourse itself did not advance any crimes.”135 Accordingly, these four emails did not further the January 6 plan and therefore are not subject to the crime-fraud exception.

In the fifth email, dated December 22, 2020, an attorney goes beyond strategizing litigation outcomes. This email considers whether to bring a case that would decide the interpretation of the Electoral Count Act and potentially risk a court finding that the Act binds Vice President Pence.136 Because the attorney concluded that a negative court ruling would “tank the January 6 strategy,” he encouraged the legal team to avoid the courts.137 This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan. The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in court—instead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a democratic election. Accordingly, this portion of the email138 is subject to the crime-fraud exception and must be disclosed.

D. First Amendment

Dr. Eastman claims that the First Amendment protects thirty documents involving a group of “civic minded citizens of a conservative viewpoint who meet semi-regularly to socialize and discuss issues of public concern.”139 Dr. Eastman contends that disclosure would deter people from participating in potentially controversial groups.

Disclosing information related to political associations can “have a profound chilling effect on the exercise of political rights.”140 The Supreme Court has therefore held that disclosure is only appropriate when there is “a sufficiently important governmental interest.”141 Courts must then balance the government’s interest and the group members’ privacy interests.142 Ultimately, disclosure requirements must be “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”143

The thirty documents at issue here are emails that include invitations for Dr. Eastman to speak about election litigation, meeting agendas, or Zoom information.144 Dr. Eastman argues that the Select Committee does not have a strong interest in these documents because they “consist[] mostly of scheduling, agenda setting, and communicating login information.”145 The Court’s in camera review shows that twenty of the thirty documents match Dr. Eastman’s description: they are entirely logistical or plan updates on state post-election litigation, which the Court has already found to be a legitimate form of recourse.146 The potential chilling effect on the participants outweighs the Select Committee’s interest because the documents are at most minimally relevant to its investigation. Accordingly, those twenty documents are protected from disclosure.

However, the Court’s review reveals that the other ten of the thirty documents are more closely tied to the Select Committee’s investigation and present a closer question.147 All of these documents relate to three meetings in the first two weeks of December 2020, which all included presentations on topics related to the election and the group’s broader interests.

Four documents pertain to a meeting on December 8, 2020: two emails are the group’s high-profile leader inviting Dr. Eastman to speak at the meeting, and two contain the meeting’s agenda.148 Based on the agenda, Dr. Eastman discussed “State legislative actions that can reverse the media-called election for Joe Biden.”149 Another speaker gave an “update on [state] legislature actions regarding electoral votes.”150

Five documents include the agenda for a meeting on December 9, 2020.151 The agenda included a section entitled “GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results,” during which a sitting Member of Congress discussed a “[p]lan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives.”152

One document contains the agenda for a meeting on December 16, 2020.153 This meeting similarly had a section on the “GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results.” In this segment, an elector for President Trump analyzed “The Constitutional implications of the Electoral College Meeting and What Comes Next.”154

The Select Committee has a substantial interest in these three meetings because the presentations furthered a critical objective of the January 6 plan: to have contested states certify alternate slates of electors for President Trump.155 The week before these meetings, Dr. Eastman sent memos to high-level White House staff explaining that the January 6 plan required legislators “to determine the manner of choosing electors, even to the point of adopting a slate of electors themselves.”156 In the same two week period, Dr. Eastman reached out to sympathetic state legislators in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, urging them to decertify Biden electors and certify alternate Trump electors. Just three days after the third meeting, Dr. Eastman admitted that his January 6 plan hinged on “electors get[ting] a certification from their State Legislators”—without it, the dueling slates would be “dead on arrival in Congress.”157 Dr. Eastman’s actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence— it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.

Dr. Eastman argues that the Select Committee’s interests are weak, but his claims are unconvincing with respect to these ten documents. He contends that the documents do not further the Committee’s investigation as they “predate January 6 and do not discuss demonstrations at the Capitol on that or any other day.”158 But Dr. Eastman incorrectly limits the Select Committee’s mandate, which extends to the “facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack . . . [and] the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.”159

The Court now considers whether the Select Committee’s interests outweigh the associational interests of the participants. Several courts have suggested that the First Amendment bars disclosure when it results in “extensive interference with political groups’ internal operations and with their effectiveness.”160 For example, the Supreme Court found that NAACP members facing “economic reprisal, loss of employment, [and] threat of physical coercion” outweighed the government’s need for disclosure of membership lists.161 On the other hand, another district court recently found that the Select Committee’s interest outweighed “the subpoena’s interference with the [Republican National Committee’s] ability to pursue political goals such as winning elections and advocating for its policies.”162

Here, Dr. Eastman argues that the risks of disclosure outweigh the Select Committee’s interest. Dr. Eastman warns that group members risk being “subject to congressional subpoena,” “forced to suffer unwanted public exposure,” and “chill[ed]” from engaging in further discussion with other members.163 Dr. Eastman contends that his concerns are compounded when “a politically misaligned congressional committee” 164 has engaged in leaks and publication of private documents.

While Dr. Eastman has legitimate concerns, they are not as weighty as either the RNC’s fears or those of NAACP members. First, the risk of third parties receiving future subpoenas cannot be sufficient to justify noncompliance with an existing subpoena. Second, disclosing the documents would not reveal a full membership list of the group; the emails blind copied all recipients, so their information is not accessible. Eight of the ten documents are meeting agendas, so group members’ names only appear if they were scheduled to speak. To mitigate any chilling effect, the Court can order redaction of the names of presenters on topics unrelated to the January 6 plan. Third, although the Court “must presume that the committees of Congress will exercise their powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties,”165 there have been leaks and public disclosures from the Select Committee in this case already.166 But as the RNC court found, the balancing still tips in the Select Committee’s favor, even when the Court considers the likelihood of disclosure to the public.167

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that disclosure of these ten key documents is “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”168 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose those ten documents.169 Dr. Eastman should redact the names of all participants listed as speakers besides those mentioned by the Court.170

DISPOSITION

For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that 440 documents are privileged. The Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the other 159 documents to the House Select Committee by 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, June 8, 2022.171

DATED: June 7, 2022

DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_______________

Notes:

1 Complaint (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 5–6.
 2 Order Re: Privilege of Documents Dated January 4-7, 2021 (“Order”) (Dkt. 260) at 3-12.
 3 Dkt. 63.
 4 Order at 44.
 5 Dkt. 286.
 6 Dkt. 336. 
7 Dkt. 345. Dr. Eastman withdrew his claims of privilege over two documents in his Brief. Brief at 21. 
 8 Dkt. 350.
 9 Dkt. 353.
 10 United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608 (9th Cir. 2009).
 11 Weil v. Inv./Indicators, Rsch. & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 25 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted).
 12 Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
 13 Clarke v. Am. Com. Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992).
 14 United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002).  15 See Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2010). 
16 In re Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 892 F.2d 778, 780–81 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)).
 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
 18 In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Envtl. Mgmt.) (“Torf”), 357 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal  quotation omitted) (emphasis added).
 19 7101; 18110; 23285; 23674; 23839; 31640; 55569; 60106; 60155; 60163; 60210.
 20 21814; 22912; 23160; 23289; 23325; 23326; 23333; 23343; 23344; 23549; 23450; 24234; 24332; 24618;  24653; 25028; 25553; 26452; 28426; 28487; 28783; 29734; 30048; 46154; 47436; 48373; 49527; 49528; 51017;  52452; 53065; 57872; 59418; 59613; 60478; 60487; 60498; 60526; 60528; 60648; 60758; 60798; 60803; 60832;  60862; 60891; 60897; 61078; 61186; 61231; 61356; 61357; 61371; 61531; 62749; 62761; 62778. 
21 3268; 3269; 3270; 3271; 7100; 7106; 7177; 7254; 7320; 7402; 7403; 7414; 7416; 7419; 15960; 15965; 15966;  15968; 15980; 15982; 16022; 16194; 16285; 16334; 16350; 17197; 17257; 18270; 19889; 20826; 21094; 21760;  21854; 23042; 23047; 23048; 23049; 23052; 23056; 23060; 23061; 23101; 23107; 23110; 23113; 23156; 23233;  23240; 23242; 23244; 23248; 23324; 23349; 23383; 23408; 23421; 23426; 23431; 23434; 23554; 23555; 23556;  23673; 23740; 23774; 23777; 23819; 23826; 23833; 23845; 23852; 23858; 23862; 23866; 23870; 23875; 23880;  23885; 23894; 23898; 23899; 23906; 23910; 23918; 24133; 24212; 24218; 24310; 24697; 24698; 24703; 24714;  24725; 24727; 24732; 24739; 24746; 24752; 24776; 24777; 24797; 24800; 24803; 24866; 24895; 24899; 24931;  24947; 25031; 25033; 25108; 25111; 25220; 25900; 25908; 26385; 26757; 26789; 26836; 26869; 26874; 26884;  26885; 28064; 28074; 28075; 28078; 28148; 28154; 28168; 28399; 28530; 28853; 28952; 29007; 29233; 29273;  29322; 29352; 29397; 29417; 29420; 29444; 29457; 29560; 29783; 29791; 30012; 30013; 30015; 30039; 30040;  30052; 30111; 30175; 30176; 30666; 31213; 32015; 32021; 32079; 32106; 33360; 38210; 43503; 45886; 46183;  46474; 47297; 47433; 48793; 49452; 49668; 50327; 51290; 51291; 51303; 51311; 51316; 51759; 53537; 53565;  53826; 55012; 55029; 55039; 55050; 55127; 55141; 55152; 55271; 55453; 55457; 55486; 55518; 55522; 56070;  56115; 57889; 57908; 57961; 58684; 59210; 59222; 59253; 59448; 59452; 59485; 59498; 59500; 59504; 59506;  59510; 59651; 59685; 59691; 59729; 59799; 59802; 59813; 59825; 59834; 59844; 59855; 59867; 59874; 59895;  59902; 59924; 59931; 59946; 59962; 59970; 59978; 59987; 60033; 60070; 60097; 60113; 60114; 60117; 60118;  60120; 60123; 60126; 60131; 60142; 60145; 60149; 60153; 60183; 60185; 60188; 60193; 60201; 60230; 60353;  60362; 60453; 60456; 60465; 60475; 60578; 60587; 60748; 60812; 60889; 61035; 61068; 61134; 61176; 61259;  61296; 61309; 61359; 61373; 61397; 61424; 61437; 61449; 61452; 61517; 61543; 61555; 61560; 61561; 61562;  61563; 61565; 61580; 61763; 64995.  
 22 23998; 24716; 24905; 24906; 51059; 55112; 56980; 57425; 57790; 59916; 60565.
 23 Order at 23.
 24 23998; 24716; 24905; 24906; 51059.
 25 23998.
 26 51059.
 27 24716; 24905; 24906. 
28 56980; 57425; 57790.
 29 Order at 24.
 30 55112; 59916; 60565.
 31 59916; 60565.
 32 55112.
 33 Torf, 357 F.3d at 908.
 34 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 20142; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117;  21122; 21124; 21126; 23582; 23584; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24802; 24893; 24897;  25035; 26075; 31598; 32071; 32072; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61697; 61724; 61764; 61767; 61768; 61904;  61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
 35 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 20142; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117;  21122; 21124; 21126; 23582; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24802; 24893; 24897; 25035; 31598;  32071; 32072; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
36 23584; 23631; 26075; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61697; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675;  62698.
 37 61724; 61764.
 38 25905; 30038; 30118; 30119.
 39 25905.
 40 30038; 30118; 30119.
 41 18814; 18822; 18956; 23291; 23591; 23905; 28479; 62958; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091; 63095;  63103; 63114; 63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448; 63449;  63450; 63451; 63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63920; 63974; 63977.
 42 Torf, 357 F.3d at 908.
 43 7650; 7652; 7799; 8739; 8742; 11779; 15393; 15584; 15636; 15944; 16182; 16184; 16354; 16561; 16892;  16893; 16894; 16895; 16901; 17124; 17247; 17416; 18406; 18550; 18552; 18554; 18684; 18793; 18796; 18797;  18813; 18821; 18858; 18863; 18865; 18875; 18887; 18901; 18902; 18919; 18920; 19169; 19686; 19888; 20163;  22679; 23290; 23292; 23306; 23308; 23310; 28104; 30669; 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 61695; 61701; 62940;  62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63919; 63973.
 44 7650; 7652; 7799; 8739; 8742; 11779; 15393; 15584; 15636; 15944; 16182; 16184; 16354; 16561; 16892;  16893; 16894; 16895; 16901; 17124; 17247; 17416; 18406; 18550; 18552; 18554; 18684; 18793; 18796; 18797; 18858; 18863; 18865; 18875; 18887; 18901; 18902; 18919; 19169; 23290; 23292; 23306; 23308; 23310; 28104;  30669.
 45 18813; 18821; 18920; 19686; 19888; 20163; 22679; 62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62984; 62987;  62996; 63000; 63919; 63973.
 46 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 61695; 61701.
 47 Brief at 26-27.
 48 Id. at 25.
 49 23291; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035;  25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674;  62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
 50 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 18813; 18814; 18821; 18822; 18920; 18956; 19686; 19888;  20142; 20163; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124; 21126; 22679; 23905; 24802;  26075; 28479; 30119; 31598; 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 32071; 32072; 61724; 61764; 62940; 62944; 62948;  62951; 62955; 62958; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091; 63095; 63103; 63114;  63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448; 63449; 63450; 63451;  63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63919; 63920; 63973; 63974; 63977.
 51 52958; 61666; 62657.
 52 52958; 62657. 
53 List item 4 in 61666.
 54 52958.
 55 61666; 62657.
 56 23893; 31209; 61862; 61868.
 57 61862; 61868.
 58 23893; 31209.
 59 6854; 6855; 18592; 18593; 18897; 25167; 25170.
 60 25167; 25170.
 61 6854; 6855; 18592; 18593; 18897. 
62 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); see United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).
 63 Below, the Court expands upon its reasoning in the prior Order and finds that Dr. Eastman and President Trump  and his campaign had an established attorney-client relationship during entire the period of the subpoena. Thus,  Dr. Eastman is a representative of President Trump and his campaign for purposes of the work product doctrine.
 64 24727; 24797; 59448; 60185; 60188.
 65 Sanmina, 968 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2020)ren; Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239.
 66 Order at 17-20, 29-30.
67 Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 869 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Deloitte LLP,  610 F.3d 129, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2010)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B).
 68 Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also  Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401–02 (1981) (noting that opinion work product is discoverable only  upon “a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means”).
 69 Order at 43 (quoting H.R. Res. 503 § 3).
 70 23291; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035;  25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768;  61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
71 6854; 6855; 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 18592; 18593; 18813; 18814; 18821; 18822; 18897;  18920; 18956; 19686; 19888; 20142; 20163; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124;  21126; 22679; 23893; 23905; 23998; 24716; 24802; 24905; 24906; 26075; 28479; 30119; 31209; 31598; 31602;  31628; 31634; 31635; 32071; 32072; 51059; 56980; 57425; 57790; 61666; 61724; 61764; 61862; 61868; 62657;  62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62958; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091;  63095; 63103; 63114; 63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448;  63449; 63450; 63451; 63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63919; 63920; 63973; 63974;  63977.
 72 Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389; see also United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010).
 73 In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
 74 See Sanmina, 968 F.3d at 1116 (internal citations omitted). In some instances, the Ninth Circuit has found  communications between an attorney and their associates privileged. See United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294,  1296 (9th Cir. 1996).
 75 23291; 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762;  24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958;  53452; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62776; 62841; 62842;  62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868; 64305; 64331; 64715.
 76 Order at 14-15.
77 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., v. Boockvar, No. 4:20-cv-02078 (M.D. Pa., filed Nov. 9, 2020); see also  Declaration of John Eastman (“Eastman Decl.”) (Dkt. 346-2) ¶ 5.
 78 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118.
 79 25167; 25170; 25905.
 80 Privilege log, 25905; 25905.
 81 30038; 30118.
 82 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778;  24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958; 53452; 61767; 61768; 62674; 62675; 62698;  62706; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868.
 83 United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388, 1406 (9th Cir. 1988).
 84 Eastman Decl. ¶¶ 15-20.
85 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897;  25035.
 86 Brief at 16.
 87 23582 (the Court refers here to the email on page 23582, sent on December 5, 2020, at 5:50 pm MST); 25035  (the Court refers here to the email on page 25036, sent on December 5, 2020, at 9:17 am). Dr. Eastman should  redact these four fully or partially protected documents wherever they appear in other documents.
 88 23584; 23631.
 89 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23591; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897.
 90 24730; 24778; 24795; 61767; 61768; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706.
 91 24730; 24778; 24795; 62674; 62675; 62698.
 92 62706. Dr. Eastman should redact the other protected emails in this thread.
 93 61767; 61768.
 94 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62865; 62868.
 95 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408. 
96 62776. The Court refers here to the email sent on January 31, 2021 at 8:45 am MST. The other email in this  document is not protected and must be disclosed.
 97 62841; 62842; 62865; 62868.
 98 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
 99 62863. The Court refers here to the emails sent on January 3, 2021 at 4:03 pm MST and January 3, 2021 at 3:06  pm MST.
 100 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861.
 101 52958; 53452.
 102 64305; 64331; 64715.
 103 Brief at 17.
 104 Eastman Decl. ¶ 21.
 105 23291; 61904; 61905; 61695; 61697; 61701. 
106 23291.
 107 61904; 61905.
 108 61695; 61697; 61701.
 109 23582; 23584; 23631; 24730; 24778; 24795; 25035; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 62674; 62675; 62698;  62776; 62863; 64305; 64331; 64715.
 110 In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Reiserer v. United States, 479 F.3d  1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“there is no confidentiality where a third party . . . either receives or generates the  documents”).
 111 United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1978); Richey, 632 F.3d at 566.
 112 In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d at 1129.
 113 23582; 23584; 23631; 24730; 25035; 62776; 64305; 64331; 64715. 
114 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408.
 115 24778; 24795.
 116 Declaration of Robert D. Cheeley (Dkt. 346-1) ¶ 5.
 117 62674; 62675; 62698.
 118 Privilege log, 62674.
 119 62863.
 120 62674; 62675; 62698; 62863. 
121 23291; 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23591; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897; 25035;  25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 52958; 53452; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674;  62675; 62698; 62706; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868. As described  above, Dr. Eastman should redact the privileged parts of documents 23582, 25035, and 62776.
 122 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
 123 In re Grand Jury Proc. (Corp.), 87 F.3d 377, 381–83 (9th Cir. 1996).
 124 Id. at 382.
 125 See In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 49 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]here may be rare cases . . . in which the  attorney’s fraudulent or criminal intent defeats a claim of privilege even if the client is innocent.”); In re  Impounded Case (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1989) (“We cannot agree” that “the crime-fraud  exception does not apply to defeat the client’s privilege where the pertinent alleged criminality is solely that of the  law firm”).
 126 In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982) (“Every court of appeals that  has addressed the crime-fraud exception’s application to work product has concluded that it does apply.”); In re  John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 492 (2d Cir. 1982) (“where so-called work-product is in aid of a criminal scheme,  fear of disclosure may serve a useful deterrent purpose and be the kind of rare occasion on which an attorney's  mental processes are not immune.”). Indeed, “conduct by an attorney that is merely unethical, as opposed to  illegal, may be enough to vitiate the work product doctrine.” United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 805 (9th  Cir. 2015).
 127 51291; 51759; 55112; 59916; 60565.
 128 Order at 36, 45.
 129 Opp’n Ex. B (Dkt. 350-3).
 130 Opp’n Ex. A (Dkt. 350-2); Order at 41.
 131 51291; see also 51759.
 132 55112, 55114.
 133 51759; 55112; 59916; 60565.
 134 51759.
 135 Order at 41.
 136 51291.
 137 The Court here refers to the first paragraph of the email. Dr. Eastman should redact the remainder of the email  before disclosing it to the Select Committee.
 138 The Court refers to the first paragraph of the email on 51291. Dr. Eastman should redact the remainder of this  document. 
139 Brief at 31.
 140 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Gibson v. Fla. Legislative Investigation  Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 557 (1963)).
 141 Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373, 2383 (2021) (plurality opinion) (quoting Doe v.  Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
 142 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 126 (1959).
 143 Bonta, 141 S. Ct. at 2383 (majority opinion). While the Select Committee proposes using only Barenblatt’s  balancing test, Opp’n at 24, the Court finds that Barenblatt and Bonta articulate effectively the same test. See  Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Pelosi, No. 22-cv-00659-TJK, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *20 (D.D.C.  May 1, 2022) (finding minimal or no differences between the tests).
 144 21115; 21119; 21120; 21242; 21243; 21245; 21253; 21429; 21430; 22779; 22780; 23038; 23956; 24948;  24950; 25165; 25438; 25558; 25877; 26072; 26091; 26790; 26791; 26793; 26903; 26910; 28376; 30032; 31471;  31537.
 145 Brief at 32.  146 21115; 21119; 21120; 21242; 21243; 21245; 21253; 21429; 21430; 23956; 25165; 25438; 25877; 26790;  26793; 26903; 26910; 28376; 31471; 31537. 
147 22779; 22780; 23038; 24948; 24950; 25558; 26072; 26091; 26791; 30032.
 148 22779; 22780; 25558; 26091.
 149 25558.
 150 Id.
 151 23038; 24948; 24950; 26072; 26791.
 152 26791.
 153 30032.
 154 Id.
 155 See Order at 4-5, 41.
156 Opp’n Ex. J (Dkt. 350-11) at 6.
 157 Opp’n Ex. D (Dkt. 350-5).
 158 Brief at 32.
 159 H.R. Res. 503 § 3(2), 117th Cong. (2021).
 160 AFL-CIO v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 333 F.3d 168, 177 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing several Supreme Court cases);  see also Pelosi, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *19.
 161 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). 
162 RNC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *23 (internal quotation marks omitted).
 163 Brief at 32-33.
 164 Id.
 165 Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
 166 Brief at 33.
 167 RNC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *20.
 168 Bonta, 141 S. Ct. at 2383. 
169 22779; 22780; 23038; 24948; 24950; 25558; 26072; 26091; 26791; 30032.
 170 The Court here refers to unmentioned participants listed on the agendas in 23038, 24948, 24950, 25558,  26072, 26091, 26791, and 30032.
 171 It is Dr. Eastman’s responsibility to redact protected emails when they appear in otherwise-disclosed  documents.
 
 
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:45 am

06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
The committee will present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, and provide the American people an initial summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power. The committee will also preview additional hearings.
https://january6th.house.gov/legislatio ... ee-hearing

**********************

[url=x]06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING[/url]

**********************



**********************



WATCH LIVE: Jan. 6 Committee hearings - Day 1
Streamed live 5 hours ago
PBS NewsHour

Warning: This hearing includes footage of violence.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its first hearing June 9, offering a glimpse into what it has learned about what led to the insurrection that day and the role of the White House, law enforcement and other officials and agencies before, during and after the attack.

The PBS NewsHour's special coverage of the hearing will begin at 8 p.m. ET. Before the hearing begins, the PBS NewsHour's Nicole Ellis will take a look at what we've learned about the attack since that day, including conversations with Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor of history, on the fallout for democracy, and the NewsHour's Lisa Desjardins, who reported from inside the Capitol as it was attacked and will cover the committee's hearing.

Thursday's hearing is the first of several the committee, led by Reps. Bennie Thomas, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney R-Wyo., plans to hold this month to lay out key findings. The nine-member panel has interviewed dozens of witnesses, including those within the Secret Service and the White House along with members of law enforcement, Congress and former President Donald Trump's family. They've subpoenaed more than 100 people to testify in the months leading up to the hearings. A select few have also been indicted by the Department of Justice for being in contempt of Congress after refusing to participate.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:25 am

January 6 Select Committee Hearing
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515



Opening statement as prepared for delivery
by Chair Bennie Thompson
June 9, 2022

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the Committee in recess at any point.

Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the Chair announces the Committee’s approval to release the deposition materials presented during tonight’s hearing.

Thanks to everyone watching tonight for sharing part of your evening, to learn about the facts and causes of the events leading up to and including the violent attack on January 6th, 2021 … on our democracy, electoral system, and country.

I am Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6th, 2021 Committee. I was born, raised and still live in Bolton, Mississippi, a town with a population of 521, which is midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, MS, and the Mississippi River.

I am from a part of the country where people justified the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021.

Over the next few weeks, hopefully you will get to know the other Members, my colleagues up here, and me. We represent a diversity of communities from all over the United States… rural areas and cities… east coast, west coast, and the heartland.

All of us have one thing in common: we swore the same oath. The same oath that all Members of Congress take upon taking office and afterward every two years if they are reelected.

We swore an oath to defend the Constitution, against all enemies: foreign … and domestic.

The words of the current oath taken by all of us—that nearly every United States Government employee takes—have their roots in the Civil War.

Throughout our history, the United States has fought against foreign enemies to preserve our democracy, electoral system, and country. When the United States Capitol was stormed and burned in 1814, foreign enemies were responsible.

Afterward, in 1862, when American citizens had taken up arms against this country, Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust. Therefore, congresspersons and U.S. Federal Government employees were required for the first time to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies— foreign… and domestic.

That oath was put to the test on January 6th, 2021.

The police officers who held the line that day honored their oaths. Many came out of that day bloodied and broken. They still bear those wounds, visible and invisible. They did their duty. They repelled the mob and ended the occupation of the Capitol. They defended the Constitution against domestic enemies—so that Congress could return, uphold our own oaths, and count your votes to ensure the transfer of power—just as we’ve done for hundreds of years.

But unlike in 1814, it was domestic enemies of the Constitution who stormed and occupied the Capitol… who sought to thwart the will of the people…to stop the transfer of power.

And they did so at the encouragement of the President of the United States.

The President of the United States. Trying to stop the transfer of power.

A precedent that had stood for 220 years, even as our democracy has faced its most difficult tests.

Thinking back again to the Civil War, in the summer of 1864, the President of the United States was staring down what he believed would be a doomed bid for reelection. He believed his opponent, General George McClellan, would wave the white flag when it came to preserving the Union. But even with that grim fate hanging in the balance, President Lincoln was ready to accept the will of the voters, come what may.

He made a quiet pledge.

He wrote down the words, “This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect….”

It will be my duty.

Lincoln sealed that memo and asked his cabinet secretaries to sign it, sight unseen. He asked them to make the same commitment he did. To accept defeat if indeed defeat was the will of the people. To uphold the rule of law. To do what every other President who came before him did… and what every President who followed him would do.

Until Donald Trump.

Donald Trump lost the Presidential election in 2020. the American people voted him out of office. It was not because of a rigged system. It was not because of voter fraud.

Don’t believe me? Hear what his former Attorney General had to say about it, and I’ll warn those watching that this contains strong language.

Bill Barr. On Election Day 2020, he was Attorney General of the United States. The top law enforcement official in the country, telling the President exactly what he thought about claims of a stolen election.

Donald Trump had his days in court to challenge the results. He was within his rights to seek those judgments. In the United States, law-abiding citizens have those tools for pursuing justice. He lost in the courts just as he did at the ballot box. And in this country, that’s the end of the line.

But for Donald Trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling, multi-step conspiracy aimed at overturning the Presidential election… aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of Americans—your votes—your voice in our democracy—and replacing the will of the American people with his will to remain in power after his term ended.

Donald Trump was at the center of that conspiracy.

And ultimately, Donald Trump—the President of the United States—spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy.

Any legal jargon you hear about “seditious conspiracy” … “obstruction of an official proceeding” … “conspiracy to defraud the United States” boils down to this: January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup. A brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after January 6th, “to overthrow the Government.” The violence was no accident. It represented Trump’s last, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.

Now, you may hear those words and think, “This is just another political attack on Donald Trump by people who don’t like him.” That’s not the case. My colleagues and I all wanted an outside, independent commission to investigate January 6th, similar to what we had after 9/11. But after first agreeing to the idea, Donald Trump’s allies in Congress put a stop to it. Apparently, they don’t want January 6th investigated at all.

And, in the last 17 months, many of those same people have tried to whitewash what happened on January 6th. To rewrite history… call it a tourist visit… label it “legitimate political discourse.” Donald Trump and his followers have adopted the words of the song writer: “Do you believe me or your lying eyes?”

We can’t sweep what happened under the rug. The American people deserve answers. So I come before you this evening not as a Democrat, but as an American who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t protect just Democrats or just Republicans. It protects all of us… “We the People.” And this scheme was an attempt to undermine the will of the people.

So tonight, and over the next few weeks, we’re going to remind you of the reality of what happened that day. But our work must do much more than just look backwards. Because our democracy remains in danger. The conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over. There are those in this country who thirst for power but have no love or respect for what makes America great: devotion to the Constitution… allegiance to the rule of law… our shared journey to build a more perfect Union.

January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here. America has long been expected to be a shining city on a hill. A beacon of hope and freedom.

A model for others—when we’re at our best. How can we play that role when our own house is in such disorder?

We must confront the truth with candor, resolve, and determination. We need to show that we are worthy of the gifts that are the birthright of every American.

That begins here. And it begins now. With a true accounting of what happened, and what led to the attack on our Constitution and our democracy.

In this moment—when the dangers to our Constitution and our democracy loom large—nothing could be more important.

Working alongside the public servants on this dais has been one of the greatest honors of my time in Congress. It’s been a particular privilege to count as a partner in this effort—and to count as a friend—the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney. She is a patriot… a public servant of profound courage… of devotion to her oath and the Constitution. It’s my pleasure to recognize Ms. Cheney for her opening statement.

*********************************

Liz Cheney’s opening remarks below as prepared for the Jan. 6 select committee’s initial public hearing.
6/9/2022

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo those words about the importance of bipartisanship, and what a tremendous honor it is to work on this committee.

Mr. Chairman, at 6:01pm on January 6th, after he spent hours watching a violent mob besiege, attack and invade our Capitol, Donald Trump tweeted. But he did not condemn the attack. Instead he justified it:

“These are the things and events that happen,” he said, “when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

As you will see in the hearings to come, President Trump believed his supporters at the Capitol, and I quote, “were doing what they should be doing.” This is what he told his staff as they pleaded with him to call off the mob, to instruct his supporters to leave. Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than a half dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th. You will hear testimony that “The President didn’t really want to put anything out” calling off the riot or asking his supporters to leave. You will hear that President Trump was yelling, and “really angry at advisors who told him he needed to be doing something more.” And, aware of the rioters’ chants to “hang Mike Pence,” the President responded with this sentiment: “maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.

You will hear evidence that President Trump refused for hours to do what his staff, his family, and many of his other advisors begged him to do: immediately instruct his supporters to stand down and evacuate the Capitol.

Tonight, you will see never-before-seen footage of the brutal attack on our Capitol, an attack that unfolded while, a few blocks away, President Trump sat watching television in his dining room off the Oval Office. You will hear audio from the brave police officers battling for their lives and ours, fighting to defend our democracy, against a violent mob Donald Trump refused to call off.

Tonight and in the weeks to come, you will see evidence of what motivated this violence, including directly from those who participated in this attack. You will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. You will see their posts on social media. We will show you what they have said in federal court. On this point, there is no room for debate. Those who invaded our Capitol and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what President Trump had told them: that the election was stolen, and that he was the rightful President. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.

You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as “conspir[ing] to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof.” Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty. The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot. Intelligence available before January 6th identified plans to “invade” the Capitol, “occupy” the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress’ count of Electoral Votes that day. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans, and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6th.

Tonight I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings. As you hear this, all Americans should keep in mind this fact: On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain President of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his Constitutional obligation to relinquish power. Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.

In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisors knew that he had, in fact, lost the election. But, despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information – to convince huge portions of the U.S. population that fraud had stolen the election from him. This was not true.

Jason Miller was a senior Trump Campaign spokesman. In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election:

A: I was in the Oval Office. At some point in the conversation, Matt Oczkowski who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.

Q: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county by county state by state results as reported?

A: Correct.

Alex Cannon was one of President Trump’s campaign lawyers. He previously worked for the Trump Organization. One of his responsibilities was to assess allegations of election fraud in November 2020. Here is one sample of his testimony -- discussing what he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:

A: I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows was asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything and I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to um change the results in any of the key states.

Q: When was that conversation?

A: Probably in November, mid to late November, I think it was before my child was born.

Q: And what was Mr. Meadows’ reaction to that information?

A: I believe the words he used were “so there’s no there there.”

There’s no there there. The Trump Campaign’s General Counsel Matt Morgan gave similar testimony. He explained that all of the fraud allegations and the campaign’s other election arguments taken together and viewed in the best possible light for President Trump, could still not change the outcome of the election.

President Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr also told Donald Trump his election claims were wrong:

A: And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.

Attorney General Barr also told President Trump that his allegations about Dominion voting machines were groundless:

“I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count, and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told him that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that and that it was doing great, great disservice to the country.”

But President Trump persisted, repeating the false Dominion allegations in public at least a dozen more times even after his Attorney General told him they were “complete nonsense.”

And after Barr’s resignation on December 23rd, the Acting Attorney General who replaced him, Jeff Rosen and the acting Deputy, Richard Donoghue told President Trump over and over again that the evidence did not support allegations he was making in public.

Many of President Trump’s White House staff also recognized that the evidence did not support the claims President Trump was making. This is the President’s daughter, commenting on Bill Barr’s statement that the Department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election:

Q: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?

A: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying.

As you will hear on Monday, the President had every right to litigate his campaign claims, but he ultimately lost more than 60 cases in state and federal courts. The President’s claims in the election cases were so frivolous and unsupported that the President’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, not only lost the lawsuits, his license to practice law was suspended. Here is what the court said of Mr. Giuliani:

Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.”

As you will see in great detail in these hearings, President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation’s courts, he ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials, he ignored the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security. 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. As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.

In our third hearing, you will see that President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Attorney General of the United States so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims. In the days before January 6th, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that, because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them.

He offered Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, the job of Acting Attorney General. President Trump wanted Mr. Clark to take a number of steps, including sending this letter to Georgia and five other states, saying the U.S. Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” This letter is a lie. The Department of Justice had, in fact, repeatedly told President Trump exactly the opposite – that they had investigated his stolen election allegations and found no credible fraud that could impact the outcome of the election. This letter, and others like it, would have urged multiple states to withdraw their official and lawful electoral votes for Biden.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue described Jeff Clark’s letter this way: “This would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country.” The Committee agrees with Mr. Donoghue’s assessment. Had Clark assumed the role of Attorney General in the days before January 6th and issued these letters, the ramifications could indeed have been grave. Mr. Donoghue also said this about Clark’s plan:

“And I recall towards the end saying, what you’re proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential Election.”

In our hearings, you will hear first-hand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House Counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office. The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings.

By contrast, Jeff Clark has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Representative Scott Perry, who was involved in trying to get Clark appointed as Attorney General, has refused to testify here. As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a Presidential Pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought Presidential Pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

In our fourth hearing, we will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Vice President Pence has spoken publicly about this:

“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

What President Trump demanded that Mike Pence do wasn’t just wrong, it was illegal and it was unconstitutional. You will hear this in great detail from the Vice President’s former General Counsel. Witnesses in these hearings will explain how the former Vice President and his staff informed President Trump over and over again that what he was pressuring Mike Pence to do was illegal.

As you will hear, President Trump engaged in a relentless effort to pressure Pence both in private and in public. You will see the evidence of that pressure from multiple witnesses live and on video. Vice President Pence demonstrated his loyalty to Donald Trump consistently over four years, but he knew that he had a higher duty – to the United States Constitution. This is testimony from the Vice President’s Chief of Staff:

A: I think the Vice President was proud of his four years of service and he felt like much had been accomplished in those four years. And I think he was proud to have stood beside the President for all that had been done. But I think he ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath, and that’s – that’s what he articulated publicly and I think that’s what he felt.

Q: His fidelity to the Constitution was more important than his fidelity to President Trump and his desire …

A: The oath he took, yes.

You will also hear about a lawyer named John Eastman. Mr. Eastman was deeply involved in President Trump’s plans. You will hear from former Fourth Circuit Federal Judge Michael Luttig, a highly respected leading conservative judge. John Eastman clerked for Judge Luttig. Judge Luttig provided counsel to the Vice President’s team in the days before January 6th. The Judge will explain how Eastman “was wrong at every turn.” And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the Vice President’s Counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway. Mr. Jacob said this to Mr. Eastman: “And thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege.” You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues.

In the course of the Select Committee’s work to obtain information from Mr. Eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. The judge evaluated these facts and he reached the conclusion that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated two federal criminal statutes. And the judge also said this: “If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6th will repeat itself.” Every American should read what this federal judge has written. The same Judge, Judge Carter, issued another decision on Tuesday night, indicating that John Eastman and other Trump lawyers knew that their legal arguments had no real chance of success in court. But they relied on those arguments anyway to try to “overturn a democratic election.”

And you will hear that while Congress was under attack on January 6th and the hours following the violence, the Trump legal team in the Willard Hotel war room continued to work to halt the count of electoral votes.

In our fifth hearing, you will see evidence that President Trump corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results. You will hear additional details about President Trump’s call to Georgia officials urging them to “find” 11,780 voted – votes that did not exist, and his efforts to get states to rescind certified electoral slates without factual basis and contrary to law. You will hear new details about the Trump campaign and other Trump associates’ efforts to instruct Republican officials in multiple states to create intentionally false electoral slates, and transmit those slates to Congress, to the Vice President, and the National Archives, falsely certifying that Trump won states he actually lost.

In our final two June hearings, you will hear how President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them, illegally, to march on the U.S. Capitol. While the violence was underway, President Trump failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.

As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing, so what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.

On December 18, 2020, a group including General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others visited the White House. They stayed late into the evening. We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there, and rushed to intervene.

A little more than an hour after Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, General Flynn and the others finally left the White House, President Trump sent the tweet on the screen now, telling people to come to Washington on January 6th: “Be there,” he instructed them. “Will be Wild!”

As you will see, this was a pivotal moment. This tweet initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6th, including by the Proud Boys who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence that day. The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned to “oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” And according to the Department of Justice:

“On Jan. 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”

Although certain former Trump officials have argued that they did not anticipate violence on January 6th, the evidence suggests otherwise. As you will see in our hearings, the White House was receiving specific reports in the days leading up to January 6th, including during President Trump’s Ellipse rally, indicating that elements in the crowd were preparing for violence at the Capitol. And, on the evening of January 5th, the President’s close advisor Steve Bannon said this on his podcast: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.

As part of our investigation, we will present information about what the White House and other intelligence agencies knew, and why the Capitol was not better prepared. But we will not lose sight of the fact that the Capitol Police did not cause the crowd to attack. And we will not blame the violence that day, violence provoked by Donald Trump, on the officers who bravely defended all of us.

In our final hearing, you will hear a moment-by-moment account of the hours-long attack from more than a half dozen White House staff, both live in the hearing room and via videotaped testimony. There is no doubt that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed. White House staff urged President Trump to intervene and call off the mob. Here is a document written while the attack was underway by a member of the White House staff advising what the President needed to say: “Anyone who entered the capitol without proper authority should leave immediately.”

This is exactly what his supporters on Capitol Hill and nationwide were urging the President to do. He would not. You will hear that leaders on Capitol Hill begged the President for help, including Republican Leader McCarthy, who was “scared” and called multiple members of President Trump’s family after he could not persuade the President himself.

Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to this committee:

A: There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Secretary Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.

By contrast, here is General Milley’s description of his conversation with President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th:

A: “He said: We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable, or words to that effect. I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly.”

And you will hear from witnesses how the day played out inside the White House, how multiple White House staff resigned in disgust, and how President Trump would not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol. It was only after multiple hours of violence that President Trump finally released a video instructing the riotous mob to leave, and as he did so, he said to them: “We love you. You’re very special.”

You will also hear that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the President’s family, White House staff and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation “to land the plane” before the Presidential Transition on January 20th. You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, and replacing the President of the United States. Multiple Members of President Trump’s own Cabinet resigned immediately after January 6th. One member of the Cabinet suggested that remaining Cabinet Officers needed to take a more active role in running the White House and the Administration. But most emblematic of those days is this exchange of texts between Sean Hannity and former President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Sean Hannity wrote in part: “Key now, no more crazy people.” “No more stolen election talk.” “Yes, impeachment and 25th amendment are real, and many people will quit.” Ms. McEnany responded in part: “Love that. That’s the playbook.”

The White House staff knew that President Trump was willing to entertain and use conspiracy theories to achieve his ends. They knew the President needed to be cut off from all of those who had encouraged him. They knew that President Donald Trump was too dangerous to be left alone. At least until he left office on January 20th. These are important facts for Congress and the American people to understand fully.

When a President fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union, or worse, causes a constitutional crisis, we are at a moment of maximum danger for our Republic. Some in the White House took responsible steps to try to prevent January 6th. Others egged the President on. Others, who could have acted, refused to do so. In this case, the White House Counsel was so concerned about potentially lawless activity, that he threatened to resign, multiple times. That is exceedingly rare and exceedingly serious. It requires immediate attention, especially when the entire team threatens to resign. However, in the Trump White House, it was not exceedingly rare and it was not treated seriously. This is a clip of Jared Kushner, addressing multiple threats by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of White House lawyers to resign in the weeks before January 6th.

Q: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?

A: I kind of, like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done, and I know that he was always, him and the team, were always saying oh we are going to resign. We are not going to be here if this happens, if that happens … So, I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.

Whining. There is a reason why people serving in our Government take an oath to the Constitution. As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty-bound to defend it – to step forward when action is required.

In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Finally, I ask all of our fellow Americans as you watch our hearings over the coming weeks, please remember what’s at stake. Remember the men and women who have fought and died so that we can live under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men. I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol rotunda on the night of January 6th. There, in, a sacred space in our constitutional republic, the place where our presidents lie in state, watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan, against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams, men and women in tactical gear with long guns deployed inside our Capitol building.

There in the rotunda, these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our Republic, including one painted in 1824 depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act, Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power. What President Reagan called, “nothing less than a miracle.” The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president...Except one.

As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great Republic.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:09 am

THOMPSON, CHENEY, & SCHIFF OPENING STATEMENTS AT SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
Jun 21, 2022
- As Delivered –

Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.

“At our last hearing, we told the story of a scheme driven by Donald Trump to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn the election results. We showed that when that pressure campaign failed and Mike Pence fulfilled his constitutional obligations, Donald Trump turned a violent mob loose on him. We showed that the mob came within roughly forty feet of the Vice President.

“Today we’ll show that what happened to Mike Pence wasn’t an isolated part of Donald Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. In fact, pressuring public servants into betraying their oaths was a fundamental part of the playbook.

“And a handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.

“As we begin today, it’s important to remember: when we count the votes for President, we count the votes state by state. For the most part, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all of that state’s Electoral College votes, and whoever wins a majority of the Electoral College votes wins the presidency.

“So when Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, he focused on just a few states.

“He wanted officials at the local and state level to say the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and throw out the results, even though, as we showed last week, there wasn’t any voter fraud that could
have overturned the election results.

“And like Mike Pence, these public servants wouldn’t go along with Donald Trump’s scheme. And when they wouldn’t embrace the big lie and substitute the will of the voters with Donald Trump’s will to remain in power. Donald Trump worked to ensure they’d face the consequences. Threats to people’s livelihoods and lives. Threats of violence that Donald Trump knew about and amplified.

“As in our other hearings, we can’t just look backward at what happened in late 2020 and early 2021. Because the danger hasn’t gone away.

“Our democracy endured a mighty test on January 6th and in the days before. We say our institutions held.

“But what does that really mean?

“Democratic institutions aren’t abstractions or ideas. They’re local officials who oversee elections. Secretaries of state. People in whom we’ve placed our trust that they’ll carry out their duties. But what if they don’t?

“Two weeks ago, New Mexico held its primary elections. One county commission refused to certify the results, citing vague, unsupported claims dealing with Dominion voting machines. Courts stepped in, saying New Mexico law required the commission to certify the results.

“Two of the three members of the commission finally relented. One still refused, saying his vote, quote, ‘isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that’s all I need.’ By the way, a few months ago, this county commissioner was found guilty of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6th.

“This story reminds us of a few things: First, as we’ve shown in our previous hearings, claims that widespread voter fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election have always been a lie. Donald Trump knew they were a lie and he kept amplifying them anyway. Everything we describe today—the relentless, destructive pressure campaign on state and local officials—was all based on a lie. Donald Trump knew it. He did it anyway.

“Second, the lie hasn’t gone away. It’s corrupting our democratic institutions. People who believe that lie are now seeking positions of public trust. And as seen in New Mexico, their oath to the people they serve will take a back seat to their commitment to the Big Lie.

“If that happens, who will make sure our institutions don’t break under the pressure? We won’t have close calls. We’ll have catastrophe.

“My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Schiff, will present much of the Select Committee’s findings on this matter.

“First, I’m pleased to recognize our Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

* * *

Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

“Today, we will be examining President Trump’s effort to overturn the election by exerting pressure on state officials and state legislatures. Donald Trump had a direct and personal role in this effort, as did Rudy Giuliani, as did John Eastman. In other words, the same people who were attempting to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes illegally, were also simultaneously working to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election at the state level. Each of these efforts to overturn the election is independently serious; each deserves attention both by Congress and our Department of Justice. But, as a federal court has already indicated, these efforts were also part of a broader plan. And all of this was done in preparation for January 6th.

“I would note two points for particular focus today:

“First, today you will hear about calls made by President Trump to officials of Georgia and other states. As you listen to these tapes, keep in mind what Donald Trump already knew at the time he made those calls – he had been told over and over again that his stolen election allegations were nonsense. For example, this is what former Attorney General Bill Barr said to President Trump about allegations in Georgia.

[multimedia]

“And Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue told Donald Trump this:

[multimedia]

“Mr. Trump was told by his own advisors that he had no basis for his stolen election claims, yet he continued to pressure state officials to change the election results.

“Second, you will hear about a number of threats and efforts to pressure state officials to reverse the election outcome.

“One of our witnesses today, Gabriel Sterling, explicitly warned President Trump about potential violence on December 1st 2020, more than a month before January 6th. You will see excerpts from that video repeatedly today:

[multimedia]

“The point is this: Donald Trump didn’t care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them, he made no effort to stop them; he went forward with his fake allegations anyway.

“One more point: I would urge all of those watching today to focus on the evidence the Committee will present. Do not be distracted by politics. This is serious. We cannot let America become a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence.

“Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today for all your service to the country. Today all America will hear about the selfless actions of these men and women, who acted honorably to uphold the rule of law, protect our freedom and preserve our Constitution. Today, Mr. Chairman, we will all see an example of what makes America great.

“Thank you. I yield back.”

* * *

Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for an opening statement.”

* * *

Representative Schiff: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair.

“November 3rd, 2020, Donald Trump ran for re-election to the office of the Presidency, and he lost. His opponent, Joe Biden, finished ahead in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and elsewhere. Nevertheless, and for the first time in history, the losing presidential candidate fought to hold onto power. As we have seen in previous hearings, he did so through a variety of means.

“On Election Day, he sought to stop the counting of the vote, knowing that the millions of absentee ballots elections officials would be counting on Election Day and thereafter would run strongly against him and deliver a victory to Joe Biden. Next, and when he could not stop the counting, he tried to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election. He went to court and filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits, making unsubstantiated claims of fraud.

“When that too failed, he mounted a pressure campaign directed at individual state legislators to try to get them to go back into session and either declare him the winner, de-certify Joe Biden as the winner, or send two slates of electors to Congress — one for Biden and one for him — and pressure Vice President Pence to choose him as the winner.

“But the state legislatures wouldn’t go along with this scheme, and neither would the Vice President. None of the legislatures agreed to go back into special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn’t stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors and then transmitted these certificates to Washington, and to the Congress, to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th.

“None of this worked. But according to federal district judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme — including conspiracy to defraud the United States. You will hear evidence of the former president and his top advisor’s direct involvement in key elements of this plot, or what Judge Carter called a ‘coup in search of a legal theory.’

“For as the judge explained, ‘President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence – it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures,’ he said, ‘to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.’

“As we have seen in our prior hearings, running through this scheme was a Big Lie that the election was plagued with massive fraud and somehow stolen.

“You will remember what the President’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, said he told the president about these claims of massive fraud affecting the outcome of the election.

[multimedia]

“The President’s lie was — and is — a dangerous cancer on the body politic. If you can convince Americans that they cannot trust their own elections, that anytime they lose, it is somehow illegitimate, then what is left but violence to determine who should govern?

“This brings us to the focus of today’s hearing. When state elections officials refused to stop the count, Donald Trump and his campaign tried to put pressure on them. When state executive officials refused to certify him the winner of states he lost, he applied more pressure. When state legislators refused to go back into session and appoint Trump electors, he amped up the pressure yet again. Anyone who got in the way of Donald Trump’s continued hold on power after he lost the election was the subject of a dangerous and escalating campaign of pressure.

“This pressure campaign brought angry phone calls and texts, armed protests, intimidation, and, all too often, threats of violence and death. State legislators were singled out. So too were statewide elections officials. Even local elections workers, diligently doing their jobs, were accused of being criminals, and had their lives turned upside down.

“As we will show, the president’s supporters heard the former president’s claims of fraud, and the false allegations he made against state and local officials, as a call to action.

[multimedia]

“This pressure campaign against state and local officials spanned numerous contested states, as you will see in this video produced by the Select Committee.

[multimedia]

“The state pressure campaign and the danger it posed to state officials and at state capitols around the nation, was a dangerous precursor to the violence we saw on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol.

“Today, you will hear from Rusty Bowers, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. He will tell us about his conversations with the President, with Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and what the President’s team asked of him, and how his oath of office would not permit it.

“You will then hear from Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, who Trump directed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes that did not exist, but just the exact number of votes needed to overtake Joe Biden.

“You will also hear from Gabriel Sterling, his Chief Operating Officer, about the spurious claims of fraud in the elections in Georgia, and who, responding to a cascading set of threats to his elections team, warned the president to stop — that someone was going to get killed.

“And you will hear from Wandrea’ “Shaye” Moss, a former local elections worker in Fulton County, Georgia, about how all of the lies about the election impacted the lives of real people who administer our elections. And still do.

“You will hear what they experienced when the most powerful man in the world — the President of the United States — sought to cling to power after being voted out of office by the American people.

“The system held, but barely. And the system held because people of courage, Republicans and Democrats, like the witnesses you will hear today, put their oath to the country and the constitution above any other consideration. They did their jobs. As we must do ours.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.”



# # #
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:14 am

THOMPSON, CHENEY, & AGUILAR OPENING STATEMENTS AT SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
Jun 16, 2022
- As Delivered –

Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.

“‘There is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.’

“No idea more un-American.

“I agree with that -- which is unusual -- because former Vice President Mike Pence and I don’t agree on much.

“These are his words, spoken a few months ago about Donald Trump’s attempt to pressure the former Vice President—pressure him into going along with an unlawful and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the 2020 election and give Donald Trump a second term in office that he did not win.

“Today, the Select Committee is going to reveal the details of that pressure campaign.

“But what does the Vice President of the United States even have to do with a presidential election?

“The Constitution says that the Vice President of the United States oversees the process of counting the Electoral College votes—a process that took place on January 6th, 2021. Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other Vice President has ever done.

“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.

“We’re fortunate for Mr. Pence’s courage on January 6th. 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. A mob that was chanting ‘Hang Mike Pence.’ A mob that had built a hangman’s gallows just outside the Capitol.

“Thanks in part to Mike Pence, our democracy withstood Donald Trump’s scheme and the violence of January 6th. But the danger hasn’t receded.

“Led by my colleague Mr. Aguilar, today we’ll lay out the facts for the American people. But first, I’ll recognize my colleague from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

* * *

Vice Chair Cheney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

“Let me take a few minutes today to put the topic of hearing in a broader context. In our last hearing, we heard unequivocal testimony that President Trump was told his election fraud allegations were complete nonsense.

“We heard this from members of the Trump campaign. We heard this from President Trump’s campaign lawyers. We heard this from President Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr. We heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Attorney General, Jeff Rosen.

“And we heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue. We heard from members of President Trump’s White House staff as well.

“Today, we are focusing on President Trump’s relentless effort to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.

“Here, again, is how the former Vice President phrased it in a speech before the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers.

[multimedia]

“What the President wanted the Vice President to do was not just wrong. It was illegal and unconstitutional.

“We will hear many details in today’s hearing, but please consider these two points.

“First, President Trump was told repeatedly that Mike Pence lacked the Constitutional and legal authority to do what President Trump was demanding he do. This is testimony from Marc Short, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, who served in the Trump administration in multiple positions over four years.

[multimedia]

“But President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman to pressure Pence to do so anyway. As a federal court has explained, ‘based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.’

“When exactly did President Trump know that it would be illegal for Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes? Here is one sample of testimony given by one of the witnesses before us today, the Vice President’s General Counsel.

[multimedia]

“That was January 4th, two days before the attack on Congress.

“A second point. Please listen to testimony today about all of the ways that President Trump attempted to pressure Vice President, including Donald Trump’s tweet at 2:24 p.m. condemning Mike Pence – when Trump already knew a violent riot was underway at the Capitol.

“In future hearings, you will hear from witnesses who were present inside the White House, who were present inside the West Wing, on that day. But today, we focus on the earnest efforts of Mike Pence, who was determined to abide by his oath of office.

“As Mike Pence prepared a statement on January 5th and 6th explaining that he would not illegally refuse to count electoral votes, he said this to his staff.

[multimedia]

“You will hear today that President Trump’s White House Counsel believed that Mike Pence did exactly the right thing on January 6th. As did others in the White House. As did Fox News Host, Sean Hannity.

“Vice President Pence understood that his oath of office was more important than his loyalty to Donald Trump. He did his duty. President Trump unequivocally did not.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.”

* * *

Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, for an opening statement.”

* * *
Representative Aguilar: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

“Today, we intend to show the American people that January 6th was not an isolated incident. In the culminating weeks culminating before, there was a legal scheme and deception.

“We’ve already learned that President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election.

“Shortly after, he began to look for a way to circumvent our country’s most fundamental civic tradition: the peaceful transfer of power.

“The President latched on to a dangerous theory and would not let go because he was convinced it would keep him in office.

“We witnessed firsthand what happened when the President of the United States weaponized this theory.

“The Capitol was overrun. Police officers lost their lives. And the Vice President was taken to a secure location because his safety was in jeopardy.

“Let’s take a look at the effect of Donald Trump’s words and actions. I want to warn our audience that the video contains explicit content:

[multimedia]

“How did we get to this point?

“How did we get to the point where President Trump’s most radical supporters led a violent attack on the Capitol and threatened to hang President Trump’s own Vice President?

“You’ll hear from witnesses that Donald Trump pressured Mike Pence to adopt a legally and morally bankrupt idea that the Vice President could choose who the next President can be.

“You’ll hear about how the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and others told Donald Trump that the Vice President had no such authority.

“But President Trump would not listen.

“You’ll hear how Vice President Pence withstood an onslaught of pressure from President Trump both publicly and privately—a pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on January 6th.

“You’ll also hear that the President knew there was a violent mob at the Capitol when he tweeted at 2:24pm that the Vice President did not have the ‘courage’ to do what needed to be done.

“Let me be clear: Vice President Pence did the right thing that day; he stayed true to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

“I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon.

“Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”

###
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34303
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron