House Select Committee Hearings on Jan. 6 (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

Let’s put our discussion in this thread we can use it for all the hearings.

 

[SamAndreas]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senator Lindsey Graham will not comply with a subpoena issued by a grand jury in Georgia investigating former U.S. President Donald Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, attorneys for the lawmaker said on Wednesday.

"Senator Graham plans to go to court, challenge the subpoena, and expects to prevail," attorneys Bart Daniel and Matt Austin said in a statement made on behalf of Graham.........

MSN

www.msn.com

I liked your post, but I don't like what Graham is doing at all.

 

[superchuck500]

I don’t see how Graham can prevail, according to what I have been reading on line. That article doesn’t discuss his basis for refusal, but I did read it has been confirmed he’s not a subject of the investigation. In essence it’s a crappy move that indicates he thinks he’s above the law, no shocker there.

But we can see the difference between a toothless congressional subpoena and a grand jury subpoena, even from a state court. Graham (via counsel) is going to have to go to court and move to have the subpoena quashed or otherwise excused. This isn't something they can just ignore like with the J6 committee.

There is a legislative privilege - it basically holds that federal lawmakers can't be compelled to come testify in state court proceedings about their activities in discharging their duties as legislators (it has similar application in other contexts). There is good policy behind it, but I think here it will boil down to how Graham presents his argument and how receptive the judge is. If you take a broad view, you can say that a senator has a official duties in the joint-session to count the electoral votes and so Graham's activities that are the subject of the subpoena fall within the scope of those legislative duties.

On the other hand, the joint-session is basically ministerial and the role of any individual senator or congressperson is basically meaningless, at least under the circumstances on January 6 - so that the proferred basis to quash the subpoena isn't really persuasive.

 

[wardorican]

Not sure where to put this

1. I hope they find out who actually threatened him and his family (vs just he vile ones) and prosecute.

2. People suck.

3. I didn't realize cork soaker was still in such use..lol.

4. If number 1 can't happen, I'd love it if this happened at least... NSFW language.

 

[barbar]

Yeah, agree. I do think it's part of the context that he also envisioned that he would be there with this armed mob to do something.

I personally think he wanted to give a little speech and then yell charge. He wanted to command his army.

 

[Eeyore]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senator Lindsey Graham will not comply with a subpoena issued by a grand jury in Georgia investigating former U.S. President Donald Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, attorneys for the lawmaker said on Wednesday.

"Senator Graham plans to go to court, challenge the subpoena, and expects to prevail," attorneys Bart Daniel and Matt Austin said in a statement made on behalf of Graham.........

MSN

www.msn.com

I don't doubt that Lady Bug gets away with this.

 

[Saintamaniac]

But we can see the difference between a toothless congressional subpoena and a grand jury subpoena, even from a state court. Graham (via counsel) is going to have to go to court and move to have the subpoena quashed or otherwise excused. This isn't something they can just ignore like with the J6 committee.

There is a legislative privilege - it basically holds that federal lawmakers can't be compelled to come testify in state court proceedings about their activities in discharging their duties as legislators (it has similar application in other contexts). There is good policy behind it, but I think here it will boil down to how Graham presents his argument and how receptive the judge is. If you take a broad view, you can say that a senator has a official duties in the joint-session to count the electoral votes and so Graham's activities that are the subject of the subpoena fall within the scope of those legislative duties.

On the other hand, the joint-session is basically ministerial and the role of any individual senator or congressperson is basically meaningless, at least under the circumstances on January 6 - so that the proferred basis to quash the subpoena isn't really persuasive.

I hope the state poses the question of how many times in his time as a US senator has graham called a state secretary of state and asked that secretary of state a question that bordered on the commission of a state election crime. If the answer is none, he should be forced to comply. His actions aided the commission of the crime IMO.

 

[DaveXA]

I personally think he wanted to give a little speech and then yell charge. He wanted to command his army.

The irony is, he was the Commander in Chief, so...

 

[TaylorB]

But we can see the difference between a toothless congressional subpoena and a grand jury subpoena, even from a state court. Graham (via counsel) is going to have to go to court and move to have the subpoena quashed or otherwise excused. This isn't something they can just ignore like with the J6 committee.

There is a legislative privilege - it basically holds that federal lawmakers can't be compelled to come testify in state court proceedings about their activities in discharging their duties as legislators (it has similar application in other contexts). There is good policy behind it, but I think here it will boil down to how Graham presents his argument and how receptive the judge is. If you take a broad view, you can say that a senator has a official duties in the joint-session to count the electoral votes and so Graham's activities that are the subject of the subpoena fall within the scope of those legislative duties.

On the other hand, the joint-session is basically ministerial and the role of any individual senator or congressperson is basically meaningless, at least under the circumstances on January 6 - so that the proferred basis to quash the subpoena isn't really persuasive.

Just based on this (very informative) post, I could see Graham's efforts to quash the subpoena going either way, and simply being dependent on the judge deciding it. There isn't likely to be much legislative or jurisprudential guidance in either direction that would stop a state court judge from deciding it based on how they feel about it.

Not asking this rhetorically -- I just haven't been very plugged in -- is there any damning information we think Graham may have re: Trump's exposure in Georgia that the other subpoenaed individuals don't? Based on the types of potential state charges I've heard thrown around for Trump in GA, I would think those cases could be proved with or without Graham. They might've anticipated Graham's non-cooperation, but decided on balance to give it a shot since there was little risk in doing so.

It is of course fun to think about Graham getting dragged into this, but I'm not sure how important it is in the grand scheme.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm not condoning everything Cipollone has done, but pretty sure you're thinking of the right guy. The point being, it would appear he had the smarts and foresight to keep his nose clean such that he could, in theory, provide very damning testimony about J6 without pleading the 5th or implicating himself.

and that is the biggest issue, and I think the key thing that the committee needs to get from Cipollone.

If they can get Cipollone, on the record, under oath, saying that he told Trump that doing "X" is illegal; and Trump is shown to have done (or tried to do "X") that is pretty clear evidence of intent.

 

[FullMonte]

But we can see the difference between a toothless congressional subpoena and a grand jury subpoena, even from a state court. Graham (via counsel) is going to have to go to court and move to have the subpoena quashed or otherwise excused. This isn't something they can just ignore like with the J6 committee.

There is a legislative privilege - it basically holds that federal lawmakers can't be compelled to come testify in state court proceedings about their activities in discharging their duties as legislators (it has similar application in other contexts). There is good policy behind it, but I think here it will boil down to how Graham presents his argument and how receptive the judge is. If you take a broad view, you can say that a senator has a official duties in the joint-session to count the electoral votes and so Graham's activities that are the subject of the subpoena fall within the scope of those legislative duties.

On the other hand, the joint-session is basically ministerial and the role of any individual senator or congressperson is basically meaningless, at least under the circumstances on January 6 - so that the proferred basis to quash the subpoena isn't really persuasive.

I don't know how that argument would work. His duties, as an elected official of South Carolina, has nothing to do with voting results in Georgia. And, looking at it as "his job was to help count the votes," that argument falls apart the instant someone points out that the law that governs how he does that part of the job specifies exactly how any objections or concerns about a particular state's votes are to be counted are handled....and no part of that law involves working on contacting officials in that state to have them change the results (or, for that matter, taking ANY action prior to the counting of the electoral votes)

 

[MT15]

I don't know how that argument would work. His duties, as an elected official of South Carolina, has nothing to do with voting results in Georgia. And, looking at it as "his job was to help count the votes," that argument falls apart the instant someone points out that the law that governs how he does that part of the job specifies exactly how any objections or concerns about a particular state's votes are to be counted are handled....and no part of that law involves working on contacting officials in that state to have them change the results (or, for that matter, taking ANY action prior to the counting of the electoral votes)

Not only that, but Raffensperger is on record saying he felt that Graham was pressuring him to throw out legally cast votes. Graham suggested that GA pick the districts with the worst signature matching (the most failed matches) and throw out ALL the votes from these districts. He did this knowing that in the past GA had the most failed signature matches in predominantly black districts. That was well known.

 

[zztop]

This is from Sunday, but not sure what they can actually do

Liz Cheney says the January 6 panel won't 'stand by' and let 'men who are claiming executive privilege' attack Cassidy Hutchinson's character

"What Cassidy Hutchinson did was an unbelievable example of bravery and of courage and patriotism in the face of real pressure," she said.

www.businessinsider.com

"The Committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege. And so we look forward very much to additional testimony under oath on a whole range of issues," she added.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes says he will waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify to the Jan. 6 select committee if they permit him to testify in person.

Rhodes, who is currently incarcerated while awaiting trial on seditious conspiracy charges for his role in the breach of the Capitol, says he wants the committee to arrange with the U.S. Marshals Service to permit him to appear in person at the Capitol complex rather than testify from the jail, and to be permitted to have his legal counsel accompany him.

“He wants to confront them,” Rhodes’ attorney James Bright said in a phone interview.
The committee declined to comment on Rhodes’ request.

The panel’s next hearing, slated for Tuesday, is expected to focus on the role of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys preparation.
Bright said he doesn’t anticipate the arrangements could be made in time for Tuesday’s hearing but hopes the panel would consider rescheduling or adding a date for Rhodes to testify.

The panel has so far not agreed to other witnesses’ demands for live testimony without first appearing for a taped deposition.

Bright said Rhodes is unwilling to sit for a taped deposition, saying he doesn’t trust the panel to air Rhodes’ remarks in full……

Oath Keepers leader offers Jan. 6 testimony — but only if it's live

“He wants to confront them,” Rhodes’ attorney James Bright said.

www.politico.com

 

[superchuck500]

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes says he will waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify to the Jan. 6 select committee if they permit him to testify in person.

Rhodes, who is currently incarcerated while awaiting trial on seditious conspiracy charges for his role in the breach of the Capitol, says he wants the committee to arrange with the U.S. Marshals Service to permit him to appear in person at the Capitol complex rather than testify from the jail, and to be permitted to have his legal counsel accompany him.

“He wants to confront them,” Rhodes’ attorney James Bright said in a phone interview.
The committee declined to comment on Rhodes’ request.

The panel’s next hearing, slated for Tuesday, is expected to focus on the role of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys preparation.
Bright said he doesn’t anticipate the arrangements could be made in time for Tuesday’s hearing but hopes the panel would consider rescheduling or adding a date for Rhodes to testify.

The panel has so far not agreed to other witnesses’ demands for live testimony without first appearing for a taped deposition.

Bright said Rhodes is unwilling to sit for a taped deposition, saying he doesn’t trust the panel to air Rhodes’ remarks in full……

Oath Keepers leader offers Jan. 6 testimony — but only if it's live

“He wants to confront them,” Rhodes’ attorney James Bright said.

www.politico.com

You can't really waive your 5A right against self-incrimination as he's suggesting. I mean you can waive it by choosing to answer a question, but if he sits down for live testimony with his lawyer and they ask him a question that directly goes to his potentially criminal action he can always choose to refuse to answer it at that point. There's no mechanism the committee would have to say he "waived" that right and must answer.

 

[DaveXA]

You can't really waive your 5A right against self-incrimination as he's suggesting. I mean you can waive it by choosing to answer a question, but if he sits down for live testimony with his lawyer and they ask him a question that directly goes to his potentially criminal action he can always choose to refuse to answer it at that point. There's no mechanism the committee would have to say he "waived" that right and must answer.

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I can't recall that ever happening.

I do think his motive for doing live testimony is to get word out about his ideology. At this point I don't think he much cares about what the committee gleans from his testimony. Just a guess anyway.

 

[bird]

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I can't recall that ever happening.

I do think his motive for doing live testimony is to get word out about his ideology. At this point I don't think he much cares about what the committee gleans from his testimony. Just a guess anyway.

Yeah, imo, he will be using this as a podium with which to make a “grand speech” to show the world the election was stolen. Go out in a blaze of glory.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, imo, he will be using this as a podium with which to make a “grand speech” to show the world the election was stolen. Go out in a blaze of glory.

Indeed.

 

[superchuck500]